Slashdot Mirror

And they are mostly known today by their statements and/or their looks.

I'm not in the music industry, but don't singing artists get most of their income with the tours after the release of a new album?
can anyone give some sort of breakdown for a typical singer? (actual sales, tours, merchandise, royalties, ...)
what's the point of having copyright lasting longer than 10 years from the creation when I'm sure that in any case most people would still like to attend a concert with the original singer, but enjoy a karaoke of the same song at home or in the local pub without the risk of someone knocking at the door and saying "do you know that this song was made 120 years ago and you'll have to pay a dead body?"

I'll post this link again, as I still find many people haven't read this. It's quite the eye-opener for those unfamiliar with how artists and bands are treated by "the Biz".

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

My band and I have been approached on a couple of occasions by "label" A&R guys. Slimy suckers. One ended up wearing a beer. We still regret the lack of foresight in that we could have saved the beer and and doused him with the slightly-used article instead.

Strat

For every band who gets "rich" due to the record labels there are dozens who are poorer than when they started with the label.

It's a cliche at this point but http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Of course bands will still be able to record without the record labels, what they won't be able to do is spend $100K on recording an album. Nirvana recorded Bleach for $600 You're also forgetting that the vast majority of acts make their income from performances not from record deals. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

And neither would the production of music by the artists be worth the effort.

Excuse me, but your assuming that most artists have ever received a monetary return that would financially make creating & performing music "worth it". Here's a clue from a musician of 30-plus years; most musicians, even very talented and creative musicians, don't make anywhere near what it costs them to create and perform their music in just about any measure you'd care to use.

We real musicians don't play and write for money...we do it because the music is inside us and burning a hole in our souls to get out. Between instrument and equipment costs, travel costs, etc etc, we rarely ever break even and even more rarely do we ever actually get ahead financially. This is why the majority of musicians have day jobs. Even many artists signed to a label seldom come out ahead because of "Hollywood accounting".

Read this piece by Steve Albini on what a typical artist/band goes through even in the rare case they're even offered the chance to sign with a major label.

The Problem With Music

Even knowing all that, how the odds are totally stacked against a band or artist ever making a living from music, we still work, strive, and sacrifice to write and perform our music.

This is why the idea that you espouse is, no offense, totally wrong.

Cheers!

Strat

See also: Negativland Interviews U2's The Edge

If you want to know just how badly the RIAA labels screw over their artists, read any treatise by any RIAA musician (except Mad Donna or the dufus drummer from Metallica). There are good ones by Courtney Love and Steve Albini that will make you feel REAL sorry for the fools who sign with major labels.

FYI, the links:
Courtney Love redefines music piracy and blasts the RIAA
The Problem With Music by Steve Albini

Most of copyright law has nothing to do with the general public, but everything to do with contract negotiations and relations between creative artists and distributors, and between different distributors. Most of it is an internal legal framework. And frankly, it works extremely well.

Steve Albini disagrees with you.

These days, there is a strong sense that piracy is an entitlement, and that extends to campaigning to get rid of anything standing in the way of that entitlement.

I think you'd have a hard time proving that assertion. The campaigning you see could have another interpretation - that people are sick of paying large useless corporations a premium to get at their content.

I know that if I go out and buy an album maybe a nickel of that money goes to the artist that I like. So the next logical step would be "why bother?" What good is that? 99.9% of the money is going to people in suits who are going to use that money to erode our rights.

My personal solution is that I simply don't buy or copy any new media. But I can understand how copyright violation would be appealing in the face of that.

Replace that system with something that pays content creators directly and you'll see people behaving differently. It isn't about "re-educating" people. It's about realizing that more duct tape isn't going to keep the battleship afloat. You need something new.

See also http://www.negativland.com/albini.html for some real numbers by someone on the inside.

About the author: Steve Albini is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's "In Utero".

I'll bet if Weird Al were to sell his digital downloads directly on his own webpage without RIAA support he'd have a different opinion on the profitability of digital music sales. Especially if Steve Albini's numbers are correct.

Al is probably earning about 2% of each sale. I'd be pissed too.

How dare the RIAA go after individual infringers, even though it's what Slashdotters said they should do back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit.

It's all about how you go after them. Jaywalking is illegal. So to stop it, would you mind if we shove a camera up your ass to record where you walk and a set of electrodes on your balls to we can zap you if you look like you might be heading away from the crosswalk?

I deserve to have people's work for free because I can. Artists are my personal slaves.

Actually, it's the RIAA that feels that way. Here, read this bit from Steve Albini. Scroll down to the math part.

Once you're done, read this.

You're an industry shill so I know you won't get the point, but there is a point to be made. It's the RIAA that are fucking over the artists you claim to care so desperately about - not the pirates. For every penny lost to piracy the record execs walk away with truckloads of cash. All in the name of "protecting the artist".

Total bullshit, and you know it.

...but chances are that even if you make it to that point, you may still end up dead fucking broke.

"Broke" may be a huge improvement over the situation that many artists who sign with a label find themselves in. Many end up in debt to the label, while the label is raking in cash from their work. Crappy contracts with onerous terms coupled with the "creative accounting" methods infamously used by labels means that your work may sell well, but you wind up practically indentured to the label for the next several albums, all while earning about what a McDonalds employee does...if you're lucky.

I post this link whenever the topic of artists and labels come up. It should be required reading for any artists thinking about signing with a label.

The Problem With Music-Steve Albini http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Cheers!

Strat

I don't have any problem with buying music straight from the artist, and have done so when one catches my ear to the point that I wish to own a copy of their music. And when I do that, the artist gets paid in full for the fruit of their labours (less whatever they paid some private production studio).

However, it distresses me to buy the same product from an RIAA affiliate, because in that case, the artist gets reamed up the ass -- usually they wind up not even owning their own work, and are paid very little (or sometimes not at all) relative to the production/distribution company's profits.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Okay Muscians actually do get paid and this isn't about record companies. This is the poor sap playing his ass off.

Read this and this. Thank you.

They're just being consistent. After all, they seldom pay a fair share of their *legit* earnings to the artist either!!

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

actually it's not that they blindly sign everyone, it is that they promise to sign, but to get to that point you have to sign a document saying you (the bad) will negiotiate until there is a deal in place. it's called letters of intent and it costs the labels nothing to get the band on those, and it costs the band all leverage

see Steve Albini's screed

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

I intend on distributing my music through the web, how can I get in on those payments?

I believe Steve Albini has the procedure for that outlined here:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

In other words, if you're not signed to a major label, fugettaboutit!

You think they want to share any money with the competition?

Cheers!

Strat

$0.17 Musicians' unions *Typical
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties *e.g The rights to the song itself
$0.80 Retail profit *Poor bastards. No wonder they're going out of business.
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit *Hmmmmmm.
$2.40 Marketing/promotion *So why don't 20 year old albums cost any less?
$2.91 Label overhead *Upgrade your equipment, jesus.
$3.89 Retail overhead *Because if it weren't for music, they'd be selling crack in that space.

4 dollars retail overhead? Maybe I'm simplifying the distribution issues inherent in specialized retail, but how could they afford to restock and oversee 50c pencils if they're getting 4 dollar overheads on CD's?

Alternative breakdowns:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0101/cd.price/frameset.exclude.html

http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/cd-costs-breakdown.html

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Check out this article, particularly the fourth paragraph - it may change your opinions a bit.

There's plenty of evidence that record companies are only out for record companies, not for artists. One need only look at an average recording contract to learn that. Here's a nifty analysis from someone IN the industry:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

(Haven't been thru the entire archive, but might be more useful stuff in http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html)

There's plenty of evidence that record companies are only out for record companies, not for artists. One need only look at an average recording contract to learn that. Here's a nifty analysis from someone IN the industry:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

(Haven't been thru the entire archive, but might be more useful stuff in http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html)

I haven't had much reason to buy U2 music lately anyway, but until now I've been OK with their politics.

These guys are from England, who gives a shit?

Paul ain't due much respect. U2 has been on the forefront of anti-fair-use since the incident involving Negativland in 1991: The Letter U and the Numeral 2

The track parodies the whole top-40 industry by sampling the backbeat of "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", and punches in bits of Casey Kasem going apeshit!. It's not just hilarious, it's one of the single most important cases in the history of sample-based music. Long story short, after a multiyear legal battle, Negativland won. By this time, most physical copies had been recalled and/or destroyed, but you can download the MP3 from their website.

In 1998, the last few chapters of the legal battle played out, also to Negativland's favor, and RIAA rewrote its rewrote its guidelines on sampling, fair use, and parody.

Which brings us back to our next top-40 hit - it's no surprise that U2 and RIAA are back in bed with each other, working ever diligently against any form of fair use: they still haven't found what they're looking for.

> I've got a huge DVD library, and it keeps growing. I'll happily pay premium prices for Criterion editions, I'm a hardcore movie geek who's always loved going to the cinema, sometimes even repeat fucking viewings for movies I really like.

If we could only find someone like Casey Kasem ranting like that off-mike, the war for fair use would be over, and we geeks would finally have won.

Paul ain't due much respect. U2 has been on the forefront of anti-fair-use since the incident involving Negativland in 1991: The Letter U and the Numeral 2

The track parodies the whole top-40 industry by sampling the backbeat of "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", and punches in bits of Casey Kasem going apeshit!. It's not just hilarious, it's one of the single most important cases in the history of sample-based music. Long story short, after a multiyear legal battle, Negativland won. By this time, most physical copies had been recalled and/or destroyed, but you can download the MP3 from their website.

In 1998, the last few chapters of the legal battle played out, also to Negativland's favor, and RIAA rewrote its rewrote its guidelines on sampling, fair use, and parody.

Which brings us back to our next top-40 hit - it's no surprise that U2 and RIAA are back in bed with each other, working ever diligently against any form of fair use: they still haven't found what they're looking for.

> I've got a huge DVD library, and it keeps growing. I'll happily pay premium prices for Criterion editions, I'm a hardcore movie geek who's always loved going to the cinema, sometimes even repeat fucking viewings for movies I really like.

If we could only find someone like Casey Kasem ranting like that off-mike, the war for fair use would be over, and we geeks would finally have won.

Paul ain't due much respect. U2 has been on the forefront of anti-fair-use since the incident involving Negativland in 1991: The Letter U and the Numeral 2

The track parodies the whole top-40 industry by sampling the backbeat of "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", and punches in bits of Casey Kasem going apeshit!. It's not just hilarious, it's one of the single most important cases in the history of sample-based music. Long story short, after a multiyear legal battle, Negativland won. By this time, most physical copies had been recalled and/or destroyed, but you can download the MP3 from their website.

In 1998, the last few chapters of the legal battle played out, also to Negativland's favor, and RIAA rewrote its rewrote its guidelines on sampling, fair use, and parody.

Which brings us back to our next top-40 hit - it's no surprise that U2 and RIAA are back in bed with each other, working ever diligently against any form of fair use: they still haven't found what they're looking for.

> I've got a huge DVD library, and it keeps growing. I'll happily pay premium prices for Criterion editions, I'm a hardcore movie geek who's always loved going to the cinema, sometimes even repeat fucking viewings for movies I really like.

If we could only find someone like Casey Kasem ranting like that off-mike, the war for fair use would be over, and we geeks would finally have won.

Enter Napster. Kids are copying music and distributing it over the internet. These corporations are now trying to sell a product that is often easier to get for free online. The iPod becomes the Walkman of the 00's. The labels fear P2P and mp3s and demand copy protection, which Apple offers them in the iTMS. Now they can sell their music online, which makes it easy to find, but control how it's copied and distributed. And it will play on the majority of players. Everything is getting back to normal, but they need more money. So they want to raise prices.

But things have changed. The labels no longer control the distribution channel of their product. Apple does. And Apple refuses to raise prices. The labels have tried other online stores, including creating their own (which is probably still their end goal), with little success because Apple will not license their copy protection, nor support other methods of copy protection on the iPod. While some governments are working to legislate this, the labels can not afford to wait for legislation to solve their problem. They are forced to make a choice.

1. Concede to Apple, sell all songs at a fixed price
2. Sell unprotected, iPod compatible files at other online retailers
3. Lose more market share

At the moment, the labels have opted to sell unprotected files on Amazon.com. If the labels can restore the retail market to at least what it was, then they can more tightly control the "authorized" distribution of their product. And for the unauthorized... While it doesn't accomplish their end goal of complete control of the distribution and retail sale of their music, it's a step closer. Apple loses some of its bargaining power, and the labels can call the shots again.

Option A will reinforce a reasonable business model that will benefit the industry, the artist, and you.

I disagree. While I would rather purchase non-DRM'd music over DRM'd music, simply because I like to play music on a number of devices; I don't believe the lack of DRM benefits artists. It may benefit me in the short term, but then again the labels might just be fattening me up to eat me. I would suggest that a solution that truly respects artist and consumer needs would: decentralize the production, marketing, and distribution chain; acknowledge that technology has lowered the cost of bringing an album to market, and pay artists appropriately; and stop intimidating law abiding citizens.

To accomplish this, we must:

1. Stop purchasing music from labels that support the RIAA
2. Support independent and local musicians. Go to their shows, buy their music.

By doing this, the artists get paid more, you often get DRM-free music, and innocent people

ok.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Does that sound more like your average band is making money hand over fist, or being bent over sideways?

Yeah, I also linked to it in another reply. Just in case you don't know it, here's one by Steve Albinie that's along the same lines but more rigorous: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

It may seem like an unrepresentative, contrived example, but it isn't. The numbers are dramatic, (rounded up for effect, I believe) but not unheard of, especially in the context of a bidding war. Even with those numbers it still holds true. If you're an American Idol winner or similar pop robot, the numbers are even worse. Maybe it sounds like a contrived example because it should be.

I don't see where she said that the fictional band lost there writing and performance royalties, but the publishing royalties (and future royalties of derivative works) are kept by the label. The publishing share is typically 50% of royalties. It's rare that the masters (and control over publishing) return to the artist. It happens most often when an artist hits superstar status, if they negotiate for it. Some artists have been re-recording old material specifically to have better access to publishing revenue from films, commercials, and other sources http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/arts/music/18old.html?pagewanted=all. But for the great majority, once you've written it the label owns it and controls it forever. There's even legal foundation for a suit if you write material while under contract, keep it, and release it later for a different medium or label.

They own your rights throughout the Universe, anyway. Just in case.

There is change happening, and some labels share the risks and rewards better with the artists than these examples describe. But the majors are still lumbering along like drunken, hungry dinosaurs.

I prefer Steve Albini's old piece - it's a shorter read - but it makes the same points. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html To paraphrase his last line, some of my friends are indeed already this fucked. And if you're interested in the homework, you may appreciate Janis Ian's viewpoint as well: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html. She talks more about downloading than contracts, but she makes the same points in the end. (And it's topical to the Radiohead story.)

Not far off:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

You have no clue about the music business. Try again

And what percentage of musical artists do you think fit into this "hugely successful" category? I'm willing to bet it's a vanishingly small minority.

So do we configure the music business model to benefit those who already make tons of money, or do we set it up to help those who are struggling down at the bottom of the pile?

For anyone not well versed in the ways of the music industry machine, I strongly recommend a read of an article by a man who knows...

The artist royalty may be less than a dollar but generally the artist doesn't get any of that. That's because all of the costs of production, marketing, packaging, etc... come out of the artists royalty.

see http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Ahh, but will it display squant?

Here is an example.

So, where does it say you're entitled to make a living doing what you enjoy? Where does it say that if you play music people like, you deserve to become a superstar? And finally, if the Internet didn't exist and the music weren't available for free, how many would still buy it? Please tell me you're not falling for the MAFIAA's logic that every copied track == 1 lost sale.

I work with quite a few artists (painters, sculptors, etc.) as well as several musicians. None are rich. None are megastars. They do it because they like it. Would they like to be the next big thing? Sure. Will they? Probably not. Do they accept the fact that performing is not the road to riches? YES. (By the way, I myself have two jobs. I don't clean grease pits because I've got other talents but I've had plenty of crappy jobs. Do I cry myself to sleep every night because no one wants to pay to watch me doing what I enjoy? No.)

Why do people have this idea that "because I'm an artist, I'll devote myself to my craft and live like shit." What's wrong with "I know I love doing this, but I want to have a decent life, so I'll get a decent job somewhere and play in my off time?" If someone is really, really driven to create art, and doesn't want to devote any time to anything else, that's great--that's what some of the best artists in history have done--but don't fucking expect me to cry for you if that's the decision you make! And don't blame the big, bad Internet for your lot in life. This fucking sense of entitlement has got to go.

Also, plenty of artists HAVE succeeded since Napster was all the rage. Guess what? It's about the same number that it's always been. Your brother's band isn't a hit? Well, I guess they need to be better. "Quite popular locally" != "1 step away from mega-riches." Also, "quite popular locally" != "we'd be rich if it weren't for those thieving kids."

There is a HUGE continuum of talent. Ranging from "no one will listen" to "you are rich." Along that continuum is "good enough to listen to for free, but not so good that I feel compelled to pay."

PS: They're hoping for a contract? Better read this.

Imagine that his band signs with a major label and gets treated like this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html Or this: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/l ove/print.html Just imagine them working for FREE for their first two CD's. Filesharers are not your brother's enemies, the RIAA is! If he wants to make money off his music, have HIM make it available on his OWN web site. He should explain (respectfully) that he loves to make music, but also needs to pay the bills, so will you kindly buy some of his merchandise? Let me say this: if he comes off having YOUR attitude, I can see why no one wants to support him and his band!

http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html

Oh but the artist should perform at concerts to make his money! Well that was simplistic and quite frankly unfair. Why should a musical artist be forced to make money by touring? Why can't his song be a commodity like any other work of fiction? When E-books are shared, do you expect the book author's main source of income being from performing public readings?

You seem to have forgotten that the author's books are available in the library to be checked out and read for free. This has been the case for a long time, and somehow authors still manage to make money. It should be noted that only the really popular authors can generally earn enough from writing to not have any other kind of job, but even those generally must keep writing to continue to earn enough to support themselves/their family/etc. There are exceptions, I doubt J. K. Rowlings will need to write another book for the rest of her life for example, but most authors have to continue to write to earn money. By your logic those authors shouldn't have to keep writing to earn a living, they wrote the book once they should be paid for it forever right? Musicians have to tour and continue writing more music for the same reasons that authors continue to write -- so they can continue to earn money. I don't think that's unfair at all, they get paid for what they do, but to make a living from it they have to work at it. You know, just like the rest of the world.

The problem being that your assumptions are based on the knock off being of inferior quality and not an exact digital reproduction. When talking about songs, each digital copy of a song in the wild lowers the value of the authentic song file. Why pay for something you can get for free?

And now I can answer this question better. I buy books, even though I can get those books at my public library for free. Some books I buy new, some I get used. So why would I buy a book when I can get it free? Because I want to own my own copy, I want to support the author, etc. The same applies to music, and the success of the iTunes store proves that people will pay for music even when it's available for free. Those who are downloading and not buying anything will likely never buy anything, they just don't think it's worth money. Some will buy music in the future, they can't afford it now (teens and college students fit into this category pretty well). Some people will also buy more music because they were able to test-listen to it for free first.

To be fair, I am mostly irritated by the idea of giving an artist (or ticketmaster) a valid reason for charging even more money for a concert. It would be nice if a concert ticket remained within the economic means of an average teenager/young adult.

I don't see why this would raise the price of tickets, most artists/bands already have to make all their money from concerts because of the horribly unfair contracts the record labels force them into. If they're managing to make money from current ticket prices there's no reason (beyond inflation) that prices should go up.

I was led to believe that an artist tours to promote their album...

You were lead wrong then, sorry. This was probably true up to around the 1960s, maybe 1970s, but nowadays artists/bands must tour to make a living. Often they have to do so to pay back the record companies too. Don't take my word for it though, Courtney Love gave a great speech about it (the link is a transcription of her speech). Steve Vai has a copy of his letter up that he sent to congress about the record companies' accounting practices. Finally, Steve Albini has an an article up also telling how the contracts work in the record compani

"I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway, so if I download the .mp3 its not like the record companies and band are going to lose money on it."
Are you saying that because I downloaded "Hit Me Baby One More Time," Britney Spears shaved her head? I doubt it.

Even if copyright infringement were stealing (which it's not), would it be ok to steal from someone who stole the same item from someone else? Would it be ok to steal from the Mafia, considering that theft is their business? Please read this article by Steve Alibini.

I'm not sure you're not being facetious, though. So if you are, pardon me.

First, if you haven't, read this. http://negativland.com/albini.html

The artist is already fucked; at least I can pay to see them live, buy a t-shirt, buy their music directly from them (if their contract allows) ...

I don't deny that I'm a thief: I rob from the rich (record labels) and give to the poor (me). I'm a small time operator stealing from Thievery Incorporated.

The real difference between the record labels and I: they use the tools they have (money, laws, business acumen, contracts, monopoly of distribution, overly-restrictive copyright law) to fuck the artists and the consumers, and I use the tools I have (P2P, BitTorrent, FreeRip) to fuck the record labels.

I also dumpster dive (I've gotten some great computer equipment over the years this way), root through the rich people's garbage for functional but outdated appliances, and I would never return money I found lying around in the street (and would probably throw the wallet away too). Feel free to denounce me for the po' white trash scum I am.

"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

Courtney basically lifted her speech from this article by Steve Albini.

black rappers are not having to pay for their freedom of expression from their own pockets.

Umm, yes they do, whether it's by using credit cards to generate inventory that is sold out of their trunks, or via record company "advances".

if we take this into account, we can say that freedom of expression was hampered.

Again, I still don't see it. Imus can start a daily podcast for a couple of thousand dollars that would have world-wide reach. Given that he was reportedly paid $8 million per year, he has the resources. He certainly has the built-in audience.

its like democracy - everyone can be candidates, but only the rich can get elected. just like this is a democracy in appearances only, that type of freedom of expression is also one that is in appearances. whatever you say, if you dont have the means to reach people, it wont matter.

I agree 100%. However, Don Imus certainly has the means to reach people.

There is always live performances, piracy will never kill that for the artists. I wonder if record labels get a cut of that.

On the economics of the music business:
Steve Albini
Courtney Love
Steva Vai

I'm holding out until I can see Squant: http://negativland.com/squant/index.html

...that artists make JACK SHIT on record sales?

We're talking less than 1% profit! What kind of crap is that? The label makes the most money, even though all they did was broker an arrangement between the artist, a studio, a media press, and a marketing outfit. They're a THIRD PARTY and they make the lion share of the profit, and then they have the balls to sue everyone under the sun because they downloaded an MP3.

Back in the day, Steve Albini (Big Black/Shellac fame) composed a fairly accurate breakdown of who makes the most money on record sales, and the figures are really sad.

Here's a link for your reading pleasure..

If you're lazy, to summarize: You can make more money flipping burgers than selling CDs of your music via a record label.

Looking at the numbers, I would rather send a $10 check to the artist and download the MP3 than pay some suit for his new ferrari.

Recently Garth Brooks made a deal with Walmart where all his new releases would be sold via the Walmart chain, with something close to 50%-50% profit sharing. I think as we get more and more artists to follow suit and tell recording labels to fuck off, RIAA and its army of racketeering criminals will pretty much fizzle out of existence.

Artists: I will GLADLY pay you for downloadable music (DRM-free, of course) as long as YOU are getting more than chump change off every sale. I will GLADLY pay you for cover art and promo media if YOU make money on it. Of course, the offer doesn't stand if your music SUCKS.

Which brings me to another point -- majority of the music that RIAA is trying so hard to protect SUCKS. The top 40 is a mockery of what music should be and nothing but a SHITTY rehash of somebody else's past work.

ok, I'm done.

-v

If an author creates a work that is read by tens of thousands but only actually sold it to 1 person, who then copied it and profited, that author will not continue to have the time to write other works because he'll need to have another job to pay the bills. Do you not see it that way?

No, simply because this is not what actually happens. It is a theoretical worst case scenario with no grounding whatsoever in reality. First off, how do you propose this person could profit from the author's work? He does not have the author's support in selling copies (no book-signing tour, no live gigs, no nothing), no advantage in production (printing and distribution costs are the same whether or not you are the author) and he still has to out-sell the author by a 10 000-to-1 margin. That's quite impressive.

Now, let's say this person instead makes a digital copy and releases it for free. What happens? Well, we actually know what happens since not only do several authors give away their books for free (Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, to name but a few) as does several bands and record companies. They still sell lots of books and records, even though the subject matter is available for free. Most report increased sales after freeing their content, due to the advertising value in doing so.
People are willing to pay, even if there is a free option. Sometimes the motive is a perceived increase of value in the "real deal" but often, it is simply the easiest way to confer appreciation to the author. Paypal donor buttons work pretty well for many on-line comic artists, even though it is totally free to read their strips. Heck, Scott Adams is pretty well off, even though I can read Dilbert for free every day. I give away my pictures for free on the web and rake in the Adsense dough (OK, I don't get rich, but it's paid for a brand new camera). Judging by the competition, I could not realistically expect to sell a single copy of any of my images. :-)

Also, there's yet another flaw in your argument: You pre-suppose that it is not the norm today that author's have day jobs. They do. There is a large (and growing) industry of printer/publishers who, instead of giving you an advance on your upcoming book, simply charge you for printing and distributing it. And people flock to them in droves.

There is simply no reason to assume that people create things only because they may sell a copy some day. People create things of their own volition today, on their own time, on their own dime. Very, very few can live off creating and manage without that day job. The rich artist is to a very large extent a myth created by the publishing industries to avoid having to pay reasonable wages. "Don't worry, you'll live in luxury off the royalties later, we'll just deduct this expense from them, no worries". The result? This: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

There's an anecdote about a similar situation (which apparently copyright does not actually protect against in all cases):

The first edition of The Lord of the Rings to be published in the United States was a pirated edition from Ace Books. For reasons which I now forget, Tolkien could not take legal action against Ace. But when Ballantine came out with its own official author-approved American edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien started a campaign against the Ace edition. The Ballantine edition was released with a notice from Tolkien in a green box on the back cover stating that this was the only authorized edition, and urging any reader with respect for living authors to purchase no other. Moreover, every time he answered a fan letter from an American reader, Tolkien appended a footnote explaining the situation and requesting that the recipient spread the word among Tolkien fans that the Ace edition should be boycotted.
Although the Ace edition was cheaper than the Ballantine, it quickly lost readers and went out of print. The boycott was successfu

Right, They're in it for the artists

Heck, this thread is so good it even deserves a working link!