Slashdot Mirror

One word - Negativland.

Check out some spoof songs that U2 sued over.

www.fishkeeping.co.uk

What's the legality of A/V mashups? Could people get in the same hot water Dangermouse did?

Yes. Negativland is a great example of this. They had a run-in with the RIAA over not clearing some samples in their 1998 release "OVER THE EDGE Volume 3 - The Weatherman's Dumb Stupid Come-Out Line". They only do mash-ups/collage as far as I know. They've also recently released (on BT as well as others) "The Mashin' of the Christ" which I don't think they've gotten in trouble for yet. They're a really cool band and do lots of activism with IP issues. Not only are they absolutely hilarious, they're really informative as well.

What's the legality of A/V mashups? Could people get in the same hot water Dangermouse did?

Yes. Negativland is a great example of this. They had a run-in with the RIAA over not clearing some samples in their 1998 release "OVER THE EDGE Volume 3 - The Weatherman's Dumb Stupid Come-Out Line". They only do mash-ups/collage as far as I know. They've also recently released (on BT as well as others) "The Mashin' of the Christ" which I don't think they've gotten in trouble for yet. They're a really cool band and do lots of activism with IP issues. Not only are they absolutely hilarious, they're really informative as well.

What's the legality of A/V mashups? Could people get in the same hot water Dangermouse did?

Yes. Negativland is a great example of this. They had a run-in with the RIAA over not clearing some samples in their 1998 release "OVER THE EDGE Volume 3 - The Weatherman's Dumb Stupid Come-Out Line". They only do mash-ups/collage as far as I know. They've also recently released (on BT as well as others) "The Mashin' of the Christ" which I don't think they've gotten in trouble for yet. They're a really cool band and do lots of activism with IP issues. Not only are they absolutely hilarious, they're really informative as well.

Courtney's Salon article in 2000 was interesting, but Steve Albini did the math better in his 1994 rant in Maximum Rock'n'Roll #133:

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

(many detailed explanations and figures later...)

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. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

In fact, some of Courtney Love's rant and Steve Albini's rant have some similarities:

Albini (1994): "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."

Love (2000): "So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven."

Sounds suspiciously familiar.

You make a lot of good points but miss the primary point of the post you are replying to.

What it is that the RIAA has a stranglehold on is distribution. The internet provides an alternative method of distribution, and with p2p the band doesn't even need to pay for most of the bandwidth.

Word of Mouth is actually the best method of advertising. Advertisers try to start it but artificially it is difficult to reproduce. Giving away your album for free is a good way for an independent band to get recognition. Hey, the price is right so if I'm at all interested in the kind of music the band is making, why not check it out. If I like it, I'll tell my all my friends who I think would also like it, maybe even burn them a CD and give it to them to save them the time to download it themselves.

Another thing is that if a band/project is moderately popular before they sign with an RIAA label, they are going to have a lot more leverage than without that grassroots underground support.

And most full-time bands can barely afford rent, regardless of whether or not they are signed to an RIAA label. Maybe they could even insist on a contract that does not allow the label to charge them for payola, and even allows them to distribute songs of their choosing on p2p as an alternative method of advertising. That would save the band a lot of money from their royalties.

I wanted to say something about Negativland and The Evolution Control Committee but they haven't sold albums on the same order of magnitude as Top 40 bands, and dispite the fact that I find them infinately more interesting than Top 40 music, I would never expect mainstream Americans to appreciate their music.

Then again, I once said the same thing about Chumbawamba.

Doubtful, according to Steve Albini

Maybe you're not aware of how major label contracts work, but the artist has to pay the costs of recording, marketing, etc., out of their royalties. The only thing the label gives them is essentially a loan, with an extremely high cost (loss of ownership of their creation, and serious doubt as to whether they'll ever get paid what they're owed). Some relevant links: Steve Albini's rant on how contracts work: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html A recent decision showing the RIAA owed $50 million in unpaid royalties to artists "they couldn't track down", like Dolly Parton: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-05-04 -music-royalties_x.htm And most importantly, the recent story of Marillion, who proved that you absolutely do not need a record company in this day and age: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/marillion_ comeback/

puh-lease. you must work for sony. that, or you have never read this. there are a ton of artists out there you don't know about. all these unknowns are working their asses off to make albums for the big corporate monsters and being swindled every step of the way. and all of them end up never making any money off of it, probably because they never got any in the first place. and i can't count on my fingers and toes all the bands i've loved that put out a few albums that sold fairly well, then they make a new one that's groundbreakingly different and the record company just doesn't bother to market it. and let's not forget the story seen here a few days ago about artists not being paid royalties. artists put their blood, sweat and tears into music, and the music industry just puts money and marketing into it. they surely don't immerse their lives in music like the artists all do. they don't try to live on nothing for months just to make an album. no, they work 9-5, have big houses and 3 bmw's. and i'm sick of hearing how the music industry is 'necessary' for music distribution, ani difranco has sold her albums _by herself_ for years and has made a huge name for herself. hundreds of independent artists work outside the industry under indie labels. all the music industry is good for is 1) gouging the public 2) ripping off artists 3) turning art into marketing 4) supporting the payola system 5) mtv (which sucks anyway) 6) forcing drm on people. these are not good things. the only artists who are happy with the industry are those who are good enough that they make tons of money off any album they make. these are the same 20 artists you see on mtv every day, and the same 40 you hear on the radio over and over. in their cases, the RIAA may "deserve" what they make, but for the thousands upon thousands of other artists out there, they are simply choking the life out of them.

sorry for the rant, but if you can't tell, this shit really pisses me off.

Anyone still subscribed to Emusic.com can download Symphony #2 for Dot Matrix Printers as well as Xerophonics.

Also, a project everyone can download for free is Droplift which is created by multiple peole inspired by Negativland. (Of whom everyone should have downloaded their illegal U2 single by now. It's about a little dog named Snuggles.)

If you think that's cool, look for a copy of the CD "Symphony for Dot Matrix Printers" by [The User], as previously discussed on Slashdot. It's excellent.

Not quite as good, but still worth buying, is "Xerophonics"

Of course, circuit bending is how popular electronic music started. Kraftwerk were building their own instruments from scavenged parts in 1970.

Let Steve Albini educate you. The downloaders are -not- the pirates raping the artists. Wise up pal.

Because the law isn't always the best yardstick of right and wrong. Currently, the laws that govern this kind of behavior are the result of some of the most intense lobbying ever. They're overblown.

I believe in checks and balances in the system. Having a single unilateral entity that answers to nobody is not how the system is supposed to work. Currently the RIAA/MPAA are sidestepping due process with the help of a senator, Fritz Hollings. Do a little research on him. Search Google for his nickname, "The Senator from Disney", so named because of his being bankrolled by the entertainment industry. Here's an example of the kind of nonsense this guy is trying to make into law.

As an example of the way things work now, let's say you share a music file. The RIAA logs on to the network and finds "this IP is sharing this file". They then bully your ISP into divulging their records, and then threaten to sue you for millions, and "allow" you to settle for thousands.

The FBI currently doesn't have that much leeway in pursuing criminals. Think about that. Now consider that they're still lobbying. What's next? They've already asserted that if the music went to your account, you are responsible. Even if it wasn't you. They've busted grandparents who's grandkids downloaded music. What if your machine gets a virus and sets itself up as a file swapping node?

Another problem with the RIAA, is that they fail to meet their established purpose. They are supposed to facilitate music and protect musicians, but instead do the exact opposite. They're essentially an extortion racket, and have been since long before the first MP3 was burned.

If you'd like to know about what a nest of criminals the RIAA are, read this article by Steve Albini. It's a must-read about how the music industry works. They're a protection racket.

And with the exception of Metallica (who, as everyone knows were replaced by pod people replicants late in '97), how many musicians can you name that are in favor of the RIAA's legal thrashings about? If the RIAA is helping people, wouldn't those people stand up and say thank you? The silence is deafening.

Do a little research. Here's a good example, an interview with Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo fame. It's a good read, especially where music executives fly him to Jamaica, get him higher than a kite and try to get him to sign legal documents.

Make no mistake, the RIAA are scum. And the fact that their lobbying has given them powers that compare well with the NSA should make you worry. It does me - and I don't share music. It gives me the creeps when criminals get that kind of power.

Weaselmancer

It looks pretty easy to make, albeit rather narrow use? Very interesting. That whole site should be required reading for /.ers. ;)

Let's not forget the Negativland/U2 incident.

Lots of info on Negativland's website, Negativland.com

Gonna have to break out the 409 on that one.

hear it here.

w00t. Sun .au files!

My first introduction "digital music" was also sally.au (and with some fun with xhost and .rhosts, we told Sally to pretend to enjoy herself by jumping to random machines in the lab, whereupon we walked away and watched hilarity ensue through a nearby window), followed up immediately by both parts of Negativland's "U2" parody.

The ironic part is that I got the .au files (and later, the MP3s) of the Negativland tracks because you couldn't buy the U2 parody due to U2's label suing Negativland for copyright infringement. That's right. RIAA's landsharks were suing people to PREVENT people from BUYING music. (Because, of course, it was music that they didn't control. So it's OK to sue people for producing it.) The only way to obtain the tracks in question was to digitize and pirate them.

Wired also has an article on the mess.

Eventually it all got settled, and the world has been able to download "the forbidden single" directly from the band's own website in a wide variety of formats, including (of course) MP3 for several years now.

steve albini's the problem with music is a well-documented accounting of how bands on major labels get hooped by clawback clauses.

It's squant, but unfortunately you'll probably not be able to see it.

yes, everything gets taken out of the advance

At least one big-name record producer and one musician will vehemently disagree with you on that point...

No. But you should listen to what Negativland was able to do with a MIDI version of U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". In the fairly near future it is very likely that we will have voice synthesizers that can sing. From there it's a short hop to "skins" for music players that will play tunes in certain styles-- an infinite range of cover tunes, in any style desired by the listener. But the music will need to come in a format designed for it, much like certain types of graphics are more suitably stored in vector form, rather than raster.

Steve Albini's The Problem With Music is a good essay about the dangers of signing with a major label. For a more inside look, Courtney Love did a pretty insightful interview at Salon a while back.

Hmmm....a $100 refundable tax credit that I can give to a "creative worker". In exchange for getting my tax credit, they give up their copyright to the music I like.

Let's see....Do I give it to my favorite band on the radio? Nope. CEPR estimates that a big label musician would be giving up their copyrights for approximately $40,000. Bands getting regular rotation on Clear Channel probably don't want the voucher because they might loose money if they give away their hit song. (Yes, I know what Steve Albini and Courtney Love have to say about record contracts. I also know that big label musicians can easily make beyond $40K/yr, even with a bad contract. I saw a "Behind The Music" on VHI that said the female rap group TLC, who filed for bankruptcy after having a notoriously crappy contract, was already making $40k/yr. Their lifestyle would have caused bankruptcy on a $40k/yr income regardless of whether the money came from vouchers or copyrights.) For professional musicians, vouchers are not worth the risk.

What about my favorite indie band? Nah. They are probably waiting to be discovered and hit the big time. If they took the voucher money, someone who is already famous could use their song without paying them. If they want to let someone else sing their song, they would probably make more money selling the song. Besides, as we already know, it is possible to make a decent living without a big label or radio play.

What about that guy who sings at coffee houses on open mic night? Yeah, he'd definitely take the voucher. He's certainly not getting any money for his singing. Oops! You don't know about that guy, so I'm the only one signing a voucher for him. He may want it, but how does it benefit the public to have his songs in the the public domain? How many people will want to sing songs written by Joe Coffeehouse?

This is not a solution to the copyright problem.

I've been reading slashdot for about 4 years or more (check my uid if you don't believe me), and while I've certainly seen this sort of thing said often enough, I don't remember ever seeing any hard data, with sources, to back up the claims.

The Problem With Music (Steve Albini)
Courtney Love Does the Math

No, they're not.

That $0.12 is way better than what the artist gets usually for every CD sold which is usually Jack and shit. And Jack just left town. I'd rather see the balance flipped to where the artist gets $0.30 per song and the record label only gets $0.12, but this is progress nonetheless.

I think that iTunes has struck the right balance between keeping the RIAA happy and keeping consumers happy. And the proof in the pudding is that iTunes is an undisputed success. There will be a tsunami unleashed when the Windows version comes out. That is, unless MusicMatch has beaten them to the punch with a similarly rational setup with minimal DRM.

Read this essay by Steve Albini (producer Nirvana)

quote "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."

If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts... I have to conclude that either your facts aren't entirely true, or aren't entirely complete. Afterall, SOMETHING is driving these bands to aspire for a big contract, and it's not poverty.

Holy smoke, this situation has been documented in so many places over the past few years. The answer to your paradox is easy: young kids in bands are really stupid! They have no idea what the money or contractual situation is, and they are easily taken advantage of.

Here's a link to a piece written back in 1993. It's by Steve Albini, a record producer who produced Nirvana's "In Utero" albulm. He explains in detail both the accounting numbers and the tragic vulnerability of newly discovered bands. Just read the first paragraph where he gives his impression of new bands about to sign a recording deal -- it's a killer.

"equals ... zero!"

From the horses mouth, so to speak. Steve Albini talks about the whole process and the backflips the record company lawyers do.

In fact, personally I think they should be teaching kids about how to spot such damningly satan-esque contract law.

BTW Albini's rant was written when the Butthole Surfers left Touch and Go and went to Capitol and work with Ministry, one of Steves least favorite bands, he was pissed.

Plus these guys are actually in the top 10% of the bands out there, the average band is something that you see opening for these guys.

The Beatles don't control Apple Records anymore .

Hmm I wonder if they ever did.

Have a look at these to know what I mean...
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15 -artists-rights_x.htm
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml


In short: in corporate america the artists *PAY* the company for their work!

Your post is pretty multi-faceted, and I don't have a lot of time, but I'll try to answer briefly.

First, read this.

As to culpability, you have a point, to a degree. Musicians, whether they are qualified or not to make their own business career decisions, certainly *should* be qualified or they shouldn't be signing. (It is, I think, important to note that this could be said of a great many individuals in a great many industries.) And yes, they do make mistakes, and yes they pay for them.

There are some mitigating factors, however, and real points to made about our culture, the dreams of artists (as any individual in any career may have dreams about future successes), and the carrots that are waved in front of the faces of artists by an already existing and quite powerful music industry.

Firstly, when discussing artists in the music industry, it's important to include B-level artists, studio musicians, singing groups at various levels of the pipeline, and garage musicians who are working hard to create something, in addition to the luminaries of the industry such as those you mentioned, Prince and U2. These are people that picked up their instruments and started acquiring their performance chops probably between 13 and 18, some of them even younger, and have been playing, practicing and worshipping at the altars of their idols for *years* before they've acquired the musicianship, songwriting ability, and/or singing/dance/performance skills necessary to be interesting to anyone besides their parents.

By the time they hit an age where their talent and skills are formidable enough--and many never do--they are *primed*. They're hungry. These are people that move to different cities for opportunities, who take bum jobs to support their dreams, and who bust their tails on top of the tails they've already been busting to try and get some attention, favorable press, the eyes and ears of someone who has any kind of power.

And why? Because, in order to duplicate the successes of the Princes (who wore the word "Slave" on his forehead for years and only broke from his label after a protracted fight, before he achieved any real independent success, which, by the way, begs the question "Where has he been lately?") and the U2s (who also had their own battles, and who struck out only after riding on the backs of labels to begin with), these younger artists need distribution. You can garner local attention, you can even make your own videos and albums. But there's one thing technology has not enabled, not really, not yet: distribution channels for product.

This is where the RIAA helms the ship. And this is where they're tough to beat. And before anyone goes replying about the Internet and all these downloadable tunes, keep in mind that real distribution isn't just about shipping product, although that is a big portion of the pie, it's also about advertising, branding, image building and a ton of other things. These younger artists have been weaned on the heroes of an entire, and very real, "industry", in all the senses of that word.

So is the RIAA needed? Well, for a national music industry, played by the old rules, yeah, they're needed. Neither Prince, nor U2, would be where they are today if they hadn't first hopped a ride on the RIAA's train. But that doesn't make the RIAA right, and that doesn't make their methods excusable. It just makes them powerful.

God, how many stories are there, from blues musicians in the thirties, forties, and fifties, on up to current bands today, like Incubus, getting into wars with their labels either over getting rooked for hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars, or selling millions of albums only to end up having made about $50,000 a piece?

Honestly, I could write on this forever, supplying documentation, examples of my own contracts, anecdotes of friends, war stories ... But I hope this point of view has shed some light, from an artist's p

>>the strongest word is still the word "free"

Off-topic, yeah, I know, but I'd rather acknolwedge your Negativland reference than just throw you an anonymous mod point!

Here's a great article written by Steve Albini on problems with the music industry...very revealing.

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

PS: Steve Albini for those that don't know was in many bands very influential to the Nirvana/Pearl Jam type bands of the day. Bands like Big Black and Shellac...then he turned to producing bands like Nirvana and Bush and others...

All right! I've been waiting for a Squant-sensitive camera for a while now. Now I can start creating my web pages using the Negativland Squant Plugin!

Yeah, but will it do squant?

Here is a great article about how the labels rip off their artists. Scroll down to see a breakdown of where the money goes. It doesn't go to the bands. On the other hand, it also shows how much a CD costs to produce. Everyone thinks that a CD costs only a few cents to dupe forgetting that the real price of a CD includes all the production, promotion, lawyers, etc. The Problem With Music

maybe bands that are poorly informed about the nature of the music industry want to "get signed" but as the previous poster stated, they just want to get some recognition. The problem is in the nature of the business itself. If you signed, the odss are something like 999 to 1 that you will get screwed.

see this article from someone who would know

Look at a music CD you have. Any CD. Look for the copyright notice in fine print (usually on the bottom part of the back of the disc jewel case). I hold in my hands a copy of U2's Best of 1980-1990 CD, and it says the copyright is held by "Polygram Records". No mention of U2 or any of the band members anywhere in the copyright notice! The record label always owns the copyright! I have a lot of CD's, and none, I repeat none of them has a copyright notice that includes the name of the band or the artist as copyright holder (not even joint copyrights). The record companies always hold the rights to everything. If you want to know how these artists are actually treated by the RIAA, here's a small article that may enlighten you as to how the system really works.

Nice article. I linked it from my site (which has a whopping TWO legal mp3s of some "music" I did back in the early 90s).

I wonder why you don't mention negativland.com anywhere in the main article page, though. While their music may not be terribly popular (they do have some free downloads on their site) they are constantly on the forefront of the battle for Fair Use rights and against the expanding "intellectual property" movement. They also have an excellent page of other articles on the topic-- including Steve Albini's version of Courtney Love's "Do the Math" speech.

Well, no, managers of major artists most likely don't do these things directly, they arrange for these things to be done. (much like how a manager would receive payments and pay the bills, but would likely hire an accountant, and the manager also reviews contracts, but still hires a lawyer)

In the case of major artists (and keep in mind, we're talking about a business arrangement that would most probably only apply to Major Artists), when it came time to tour the manager would shop around for a merchandiser. Why source it out? One, recording artists' business is cyclical, with recordings and tours only happening once every year or two, or less; setting up and tearing down the infrastructure to handle the merchandising every other year would be a waste of time, effort and money. Second, the merchandising companies would be a step ahead anyways - are the kids buying tank tops or long-sleeve shirts? Do they want toques or headbands? Will keychains sell or would necklasses do better? A good merchandising company would already have current market data and be able to show this to the band, via their manager.

As for sponsorship/marketing deals, there are companies which handle this, they do market research and studies to back up the value of the artist and arrange these promo deals, and again, the manager would deal with these middlemen. It would be unlikely that an artist's management would deal directly with a corporation looking for a spokesperson.

Then there's touring: even with a regular manager, many bands will have a separate tour manager and/or booking agency. Again, while a manager is handling day-to-day business, a tour manager and booking agents would take care of the touring parts of the business, with the manager overseeing it all.

So what we have is recording companies wanting set up a merchandising division, an advertising/marketing division to handle corporate sponsorship, and a tour management/booking agent division. None of the work done by these parts of an expanded record company would negate or reduce the role of the manager, nor would they upset an artist's bargaining position. Once again, these types of deals would be for Major Artists, who could take their business just about anywhere they want. Small-time bands would probably never see this type of deal with an entertainment company.

"This takes time, people and money." You realize all the label does is spend the artists money right? They put the money out upfront but this is a loan, the label takes all these expenses out of the artists cut.

Yes, with the release of a CD, expenses are recouped from the artist, but that's why it's called an advance - they are lending money. If you started a new job and the boss offered you a year's salary up front, you wouldn't be working for nothing for the rest of the year - you'd be working for the money you've already been given. Whether you get paid now or later, you get paid. Once the advance is paid, if sales continue, then there's more money for the artist With this responsibility in mind, some bands don't get/take an advance.

If you look at business from the label's side of the deal, say they sign a band, and the band sells tons of CDs and the label makes lots of money. That's great for them, but for every band that sells well, plenty take a dive and the labels lose money on these. The entertainment business is very speculative, and whether it's music, movies or television, the money from the winners goes to pay for the losers. Even in a hypothetical scenario like the one presented by Steve Albini (which doesn't include the writer's royalties, by the way), the label doesn't make a frighteningly huge sum of money, and from the money they do make, salaries must be paid for everyone from executives to stock boys in the warehouse, rent must be paid, phone bills, insurance, etc., etc., and losses from CDs that tank must be covered.

If running a record label is such a fanta

As for a non-fictional band, read what Coco the Electric Monkey Wizard and The Brannock Device of Man or Astroman? has to say about playing Irving Plaza.

As for writing royalties, this explains Mechical Royalties and the Harry Fox Agency.

Here is an article that mentions mechanicals and P2P by Dave Lowery of Camper Van Beethoven, and Cracker

It's probably done in the 80 million pound advance against future profits. I'm sure the labels will hold him liable if they don't make that much money off him. That's what they do.

You should read Steve Albini's article The Problem With Music.

Here's the 1st paragraph:

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

Also, for those who talk of the tools being expensive, understand that musicians in America (unless they are part of a very small elite) do not make a Professional's wages. Usually they have to work a "day job" to survive. If they have a recording contract they are under a contract that can be charitably referred to as legalized slavery. Read this article for details. Even people in bands that you would think would be living the high life have to go back to their "day job" when they are not touring.

We do not treat musicians as professionals here in the US. In Europe, it's a bit better...the State often times steps in with a relationship that we here in the US would call "welfare" but what is more reminiscent of the artist-patron relationship of centuries past. But still, only a small minority can make professional wages as a professional musician. Wake up and smell the desperation.

Here's a link from a 1998 victim of the RIAA that includes email IDs and (old) job titles for most of the RIAA's big shots, and makes it easy to figure out the email address for anyone who started later... Do We Have To Sue the RIAA?? The millenium has changed, but not the RIAA's tactics or most of the top names. You'll find the main address, phone and fax number for RIAA Headquarters, plus a long list of RIAA staff names, job titles, and email IDs at the end of the story. Some of the job titles have changed, but their email IDs are certainly still the same. There's even a link to send messages to ALL the email IDs they have listed!

• the site takes .40,
• the labels take .30 and
• the labels take another 12 cents from the artist's share to recoup "production advances" and "independent promotion"

This is completely and totally true. $0.12 is actually PROGRESS when compared to the status quo. Here's a better breakdown of the whole situation, courtesy record producer Steve Albini:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

As far as the whiners about "the death of the album" go, two things wrong with their premises:

1. Up until the 1970s that's the way radio and records went. Top 40 Radio created a singles-oriented business, with the album as gravy. Even with great albums like Sgt. Pepper the Beatles made sure there was at least one good single on there if not a few. It was only with the popularity of Album Oriented Radio in the 1970s that things changed. The last gasp of the single 45rpm record as a mass consumer good was in the early 1980s.
2. The primacy of the album has been basically stood on its head in the first decade of the 21st century. The average CD has you back in the '60s again, with albums that have one or two good songs and an ocean of filler. Some of the people complaining on that list are guilty of this crime against the music consumer.

The fact of the matter is that the "album" died years ago. Deal with it.