Slashdot Mirror
PressPlay and MusicNet vs. Artists
gilroy writes: "According to a New York Times article (free registration, yadda yadda), despite taking the moral high ground (that they want to see artists compensated, as opposed to all those evil downloaders), the record companies have actually set up pay schedules so as to -- wait for it -- rip off the artists who record the music. Some figure they will earn less than $0.0023 per download -- yes, that's hundredths of a penny. Best quote from the article: 'For many acts, suddenly there appears to be little difference between the illicit file-sharing system and record-label services.' Good to see they're fighting for the artists, n'est-ce pas?"
They're only honest and fair when they can make/save more money by doing so.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
The greedier the industry gets, the better it is for the artists and the public in general, simply because it will eventually reach the point where everybody (and, hopefully, Metallica too) will just want to bypass them. The nice thing is, we now have the means to do so. It's much easier to convince a judge that a publisher does not deserve protection if it's obviously ripping everybody off.
It seems the only way that we'll break out of the cycle of recording companies ripping off artists are to bancrupt them. And that means hard times for recording artists while a new economy is built to support them.
I do think that file sharing is a good thing, but it is also destructive to the current economic structure of the music industry. But, with change comes pain.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
I'm glad someone is. Though I agree with the idea that record companies aren't the elite "doers of good" in the industry, the fact remains that many geeks (myself included) have basically been fucking over the artists by downloading free music. Admit it. The first time you saw someone download something from Napster/GNUtella/whatever, you had a pang in your gut that said "Isn't there something wrong with this?" It's called guilt.
There are hundreds of record labels that get screwed over by these practices - there are millions of artists who get the same. Unfortunately, without a massive revamping of the entire industry, you can't fuck one and not the other.
He added that it was "beyond logic" that artists would choose to leave their music off Pressplay and "effectively encourage the use of illegal services."
In other words, why would an artist give his/her music away for free when they can make money using pressplay?
Think of pressplay as another broadcast source. Just as each time an artists gets dinore when their song is heard on the radio, they will get money each time their song is downloaded from pressplay.
I think that once the kinks are worked out so that the artists feel as if they are getting their "fair share," this system will become very very popular.
Recording companies offer the artists a service they often like: "Don't bother with the business, we've got all the skilled marketroids to ensure your genius will reach the masses. Just keep doing you art". This comes for a price, of course. But truth is, managing your own musical business while doing art is a real pain. I hope such incidents will entice more and more artists to try alternative ways of ditribution and earnings.
Giving away the music and being paid through Paypal seems a bit overoptimistic, giving away the music, or making it very cheap, and being paid through concerts is something some bands are actually doing, trusting small companies that essentially work through the web is something I'd like too see develop in the future.
MPAA has a monopoly they don't want to lose. It's not only against MP3-sharing they are fighting, but also against any possible alternative to the way they make business. Because they can't afford to stop to grow.
No, it's thousandths. ;)
Uh, dude, $0.0023 is 23 hundredths of a penny. You can call it 230 thousanths if you want, but then why not call it 230,000 millionths?
> but they're the ones that signed the contract.
> Nobody is screwing the band/artist, except
> themselves.
Not true. For the vast majority of bands, the choice was: sign the contract OR don't get published, don't make any money at all, and don't become professional musicians.
This is the oldest trick in the book when it comes to "rights". Yea, you have rights, and we'll defend them as long as they're useful. But as soon as you actually want to achieve anything - bam! You have to sign your rights away, and then everyone can say it's your own fault because you "chose" it.
What this would require, of course, is strengthening the rights granted by copyright law so that the rights granted are actually protected - ie, cannot be signed away in agreements, and cannot be blocked from exercise by practicality. But, of course, that would have a VERY interesting effect on software licenses..
Admit it. The first time you saw someone download something from Napster/GNUtella/whatever, you had a pang in your gut that said "Isn't there something wrong with this?" It's called guilt.
I think you are overestimating guilt here; the only ones feeling it are the misguided "moral" prudes who feel pangs of guilt when they fast forward commercials.
In reality the first thing most people thought when they meet napster et. al. was "man those downloads are kinda slow, and some of the songs are truncated or low-quality"
Non-commercial private sharing poses scarce threat to copyright holders if the would JUST MEET DEMAND. How long does it take for someone to offer affordable high quality-low hassle subscriptions to digital media? Simply on the books copyright law is enough protection, more than enough- all this SDMI crap is a collosal waste.
Until someone steps forward to meet demand, there is little room for "guilt". The longer they delay, the more effort is put into filesharing regardless.
I submitted this yesterday and it was rejected:
2002-02-18 15:32:33 Record Companies Facing Revolt of Artists (articles,music) (rejected)
I've read all the FAQ's on submitting (several times) and try as I might I cannot get a story accepted on this site. It makes one wonder what other stuff gets overlooked in the submission queue.
More to the point, it makes me wonder what issues are important to the editors of this site but which are not being clearly articulated in the FAQ's on submitting. I.e. I must be doing something wrong, but for the life of me I can't figure out what.
I wouldn't mind the music tax so much, if the record labels put more towards programs like save the music or other programs designed to increase/improve music studies in public schools. The labels are such hypocritical money hoarding sharks. The legal system needs to seriously slap the labels upside the head.
Non-commercial private sharing poses scarce threat to copyright holders if the would JUST MEET DEMAND.
This is way too optimistic.
I'll be honest. I have a lousy job. I don't make very much money. There's a temp agency taking $4 an hour from me just for finding this lousy job for me. I am absolutely not going to pay for music (or software, or movies) unless I absolutely, absolutely have to.
I believe that there are a lot of people like me. Those of you here on Slashdot who are saying that people are willing to buy all their CDs from Tower if they were only $6 are, I'm convinced, a vocal (and affluent) minority. $6 is still too much to spend on a CD when you're searching for loose dimes to pay the rest of your DSL bill.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Although Pressplay and MusicNet license the music, the bands are not paid a licensing fee. Instead, the labels pay their artists a standard royalty for each song accessed by a fan, as they would for a CD sold. This means that the artist gets on average less than 15 percent instead of 50 percent. But, out of that, 35 to 45 percent is deducted for standard CD expenses like packaging and promotional copies -- expenses that obviously don't exist in the online world.
And:
To try to avoid future protests, most major labels have added a clause to their standard recording contracts allowing the label to sell an act's songs on the Internet, including all subscription and pay-per-use services. It is very difficult, said Mr. Stiffelman, for a new band to have enough leverage to remove this clause from its contract.
In other words, the bands' lawyers are arguing that the music label contracts give a royalty for each copy of the song sold, and a license payment for each instance of the song used but not sold. Future contracts will probably alter this, but the bands feel they deserve a higher license fee instead of a tiny royalty -- which is cut further by CD packaging expenses which the online world doesn't have.
Bands do not "sign away" all the rights to their songs when they record with a label. They retain the right to a cut of the profits. The argument here is that the cut they're getting is unfairly and possibly illegally small.
Sorry, but Britney was always the most searched-for artist on Napster. I always thought that was a symptom of being in a transition period between the MTV generation (being told what to like, and bringing those preferences to the new medium) and the bright and glorious Napster future, where people could actually find music they like for minimal promotional expense on the part of the band. Unfortunately we never got to find out.
--
E_NOSIG
Sure, the record companies are ripping off the artists. But isn't that exactly what happens with filesharing, only more so? How does that make filesharing acceptable? To me it looks like people engaging in filesharing are just as bad, if not worse than the record labels. And hypocritical about it too. After all, at least the artists can try to negotiate with the record labels (as this article describes). Not mention that the artists are free to set up a co-operative or their own labels, or whatever. Of course the filesharers will just rip the product of the cooperative too.
Besides touring, you can use alternate methods of distribution such as: net downloads or you can even cut your own CD's and sell them through an online store. Basically, there is no reason for artists to be so dependent on record sales.
False. That's precisely the point of the article. The record companies DO own the right to publish and promote the music, but only in traditional formats. They do NOT have the right to publish those songs online, which is what gives a lot of the artists the ability to send out cease-and-desist letters (and, as some will, hopefully, start lawsuits.)
... I'd be more than happy to pay for that!
A lot of established artists are doing precisely those things, because the record labels legally don't have the right to prevent the distribution. There have been a lot of slashdot articles on this subject, and it's part of Napster's defense, to which a coalition of artists signed on.
I'd never purchase a subscription to the record labels' services, for multiple reasons beyond principle. Now, if only someone would start negotiating a system where the artists could sign on for 70% profits on song downloads and allowed you to do whatever you wanted with the music
Problem is, most companies are too scared to get into that mess, because the record labels will do everything in their power to prevent the loss of that market--even though their case is nearly indefensible, since it's not supported by contract.
got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
Just a quick reply, but the true figure is "90+ years of copyright is [more] than enough". Everything is in degrees, and I, along with many other /.'ers, think that the current system of copyright law is screwed up. To take the artist's pov, if they are a phenom, and create something (art, music, movie, whatever) when they are 10 years old, in the current system they would be 100 years old before that passed into public domain. Does that seem excessive? When patents expire in 20 years, that is, ideas that can advance the human race are given 20 years of protection, but if you write a short story, you are protected for the rest of your natural life? Do you see the discrepancy? Now that that is agreed upon, it comes down to degrees. Whether I think the artist should get the same years as patent holders or not is irrelevant, and can be discussed in another forum. Combine all that to the fact that when we talk copyright, we aren't actually discussing the artist, but instead the copyright-holder (in almost all cases, that is their label or ditributor), and you see where your correlation between the two topics (artist's being screwed vs. copyright protections) is flawed. If the artist *wasn't* screwed, for the 14/20/whatever # of years they should be protected, then we would both be happy (all 3! the artist would be happier as well).
Sorry for the formating, I'm in a hurry...
The company is still footing the bill up front. If the record doesn't sell, the artist hasn't lost anything (and actually gained quite a bit).
I'm not supporting the record companies, but the fact remains they still record and produce artists who wouldn't have otherwise been able to to make it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This isn't a communist nation or a dicatorship people. The artists get themselves into these contracts. If they don't like it, then don't do it. Simple.. get a real job like everyone else. The fact is that the record labels KNOW they can find suitable talent willing to work for basically nothing, and until that changes (this is basic economics after all) then what exactly are they doing wrong? Its like a worker at McDonals. Teenagers are willing to put up with quite a bit for 5.15 an hour so McDonalds has no incentive to pay them more. Rock stars are willing to work for similiar, and so the labels don't have to pay them more. Good for them.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
(1) those who admit they download or rip music, but claim they either own all the CDs they rip, and/or that they buy more CDs, or more diverse CDs, as a result of downloading; and
(2) those who claim they never download or rip music, but insist that those who do are simply opportunistic freeloading teens downloading or copying Britney/N'Sync, and deny that category (1) exists.
What is striking about this duality is that the people who actually do rip/download would seem to be in a better position to report why they are doing it, as compared to those who have never opened a Gnutella window or ripped a CD. Personally, my girlfriend and I exemplify both classes of category (1) very clearly - she rips our CDs so she can make us mix CDs for the car/gym; I try out mp3s of new music, and buy the CD if I like it; we both rip some CDs so that we can play the tracks on our computers with visual displays such as I Tunes and Winamp plugins. And we would jump at the chance to convert our large (approx. 3000 CD and 500 LP) music collection to a high fidelity, all digital format that could be databased, searched, and easily played on our audio gear as well as the computer. Ironically, although such capability would enable us to buy even more CDs than we already do (we are running out of CD room in the house - seriously), the music industry seems determined to ensure that this never can happen.
Isn't there some way to obtain empirical data to determine whether (1) or (2) is the most valid world view? For example, could a program be devised to crawl out over Gnutella and track and compile download frequency data of file names, to see whether most downloading is focused on the big money pop groups as the industry claims? If that's too scary, could some university department with expertise in such things conduct a reliable blinded survey, or arrange a study of this behavior? When the two sides of the debate have such different perceptions about what is actually occuring, it's difficult to see how progress can ever be made.
And if I'm right (as I suspect) that category (1) users actually predominate, and that many category (1) users are actually serious music buffs like us (and are the industry's best customers, I would think), it is possible that the RIAA and its government backers would be given pause. I mean, I was a teenager once, and how much music could I afford to buy then? None. I admit that in those days I shoplifted a few 45s and LPs I desperately wanted and couldn't hear on the radio, and even though I would gladly have paid if I'd had the money, it still wasn't right. But I have paid that back with thousands of legitimate purchases as an adult. One would think that the music distributors would look at downloading the same way - it is the soil in which their best future customers grow. I find it hard to believe that teens who get their jollies downloading Britney (or other such slop) and copying it for their school clique are ever destined to become music nuts such as myself. The industry would be better worrying less about squeezing the last penny out of Britney drones who will probably never buy a single piece of music after they leave college, and worrying more about how much money they'll lose when people who purchase hundreds of CDs every year swear off Universal and other labels that cripple our music. My girlfriend and I have already done so.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Well, where do I start?
Well, it's not called "ripping people off," it's called investing. Record companies put up a huge amount of capital to produce records, market bands, and finance tours. Because there's a great deal of risk involved in promoting musicians, the recording industry demands a very high rate of return. Yes, the musicians create the content, but without financial backing, you never would have heard of Metallica.
Investing my ass, if anyone but the record labels did what they do, they'd be hauled into court for loansharking and racketeering. Oh wait, that's already happened to them...
Per the high risk of modern music and need for a high return, you're right. In fact, just like small businesses, they're quite risky. Guess what? If I get a loan for my small business, I make 100% of the money that customers pay me, and then I repay 100% of my loan from my proceeds. If I'm a signed musician, I get 7% of the money that customers pay for me, and then I repay 100% of my record company loans from my proceeds. Do you see a problem with this equation??
Band contracts last for a set number of years, and during that time, the record company will spend a gratuitous amount of capital promoting them.
WRONG. Contracts last for a set number of *albums* - there is absolutely no year limit. Also, the record company will *not* necessarily spend a given amount of capital promoting the artist - they will typically have X$$ to promote 10 groups out of the 20-30 they signed that year. The others will be cut at the end of the year.
Once that contract expires, the band typically retains the band name, for which a tremendous amount of branding work has been done.
If you're one of the 10 out of 30, some branding work has been done. Also, most contracts don't expire, the artist is flat out dumped from the contract. For those contracts that do expire, sure the band retains their band name, but they have no rights to their music or lyrics - the label owns those for at least 35 years at the minimum unless they auction them off to the highest bidder - who then keeps the copyright on the artists' material for the life of the auuthor plus 95 years.
They can take their brand and cash in on it themselves.
Riiiiight, you're talking about less than 2% of all acts signed to the major labels by this point. By the way, if they play their songs in concert, they have to pay the label for the rights to play their songs - because the songs don't belong to them. They belong to the label. If they create a Greatest Hits album, 90-93% of that money goes to the label. That's cashing in, right?
The end result is that bands that have longevity
You're on a roll now. Through la-la land.
will eventually get to live a fairy-tale existence, riding off into the sunset with millions and millions tucked away into their mutual funds.
You mean Waylon Jennings? Merle Haggard? TLC? Guess what, between all of them, they have never received a royalty check despite selling tens of millions of records and CDs.
Let me just say that, while I sympathize with people like Courtney Love, I won't shed a tear if she ends up with $15 million in the bank instead of $35 million. She can probably have her chauffer start clipping coupons out of the Sunday paper to help her make ends meet.
Are you a record company shrill? You speak like one. Courtney Love and Hole are not mega sellers, and likely will make less than $1 million net for their careers, divided by 4 members *and* 8-10 years. That comes out to $25,000-$31,000 per year per member before taxes - if they're lucky. 99% of all artists signed to the labels will not see a royalty check - coupons will be a necessity for them.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the internet and technology advances equalizing the revenues of the entertainment industry, as high-quality audio and video content becomes ridiculously cheap to create and distribute.
In theory, technology and the internet should force prices down, but many of us know they won't. It will be ridiculously cheap for the LABELS to create and distribute, but those savings will not see their way to either the artist or the consumer. Those ever-cheapening prices *will* help the independent artist who avoids the labels like a plague, thank God.
What a troll.
That's not entirely true - there is music that exists without musicians or bands per se, and can only be appreciated via recordings. Soundtracks and scores may never be played outside of the show, except in recording. Live performances cannot be repeated but they can be recorded. And there are even a few virtual bands/artists (Gorillaz comes to mind) that live in records and music videos, but no where else.
It's not that I don't think that we wouldn't be better off if musicians earned their money exclusively through performance, rather than recordings and radio. It's just that there are exceptions to that method. In addition to some music, many artistic works (Films, TV, print, etc.) can not be performed but only recorded. Figuring out a way for the artists to make a living while the art is freely reproducible in those cases is the more important problem.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
This is a wonderful example of why vertical marketing sucks in the entertainment industry in general and in the music & movie industries in particular for the consumer.
Vertical marketing, for those more familiar with a Unix prompt than corporate strategy, is the positioning of your company such that you control all aspects of production & distribution for the life of your product, from soup to nuts per se, or from artist to consumer. For example: in the beginning of the movie industry in the 20's - 30's, Edison had a vertical lock on motion picture production and distribution. Through patents he controled both the ability to make movies and the ability to show movies. There were Edison theaters, and you had to have Edison cameras to make films (at least in the US). The result was that he could charge the movie companies whatever he wanted to make a movie, then he could force them to show them only in his theaters, and at prices he decided. In a free market the owner of the technology (Edison) and the owners of the talent (studios) needed each other. but because Edison had a lock through patents the studios had nowhere else to go. Eventually he was forced to divest the theater business to people like Loews, etc.
How the story ties into the music industry is thusly. The music industry has been vertically integrated for a LONG time. They find the talent, produce the product, and control the distribution to retailers. Only what's hapenned to them is that because of innovation the nature of the product has changed in people's minds. People now know that music isn't a piece of magnetic tape or a little plastic disc. It's a piece of information.
Crushing Napster/KaZaa/Morpheus is vital to the future of the big 5 companies for this reason. It's has nothing to do with "piracy", because there's never been any evidence of a hit to their bottom line -- in fact, they've been raking it in over the past 5 years. It's about crushing your competitors and bad-mouthing the very innovation that's threatening you (thus you get the MP3 = piracy thing), introducing your own service that essentially does the same thing, and thus staying vertically integrated. Hell, my bet is they don't even care about downstream sharing as long as they're controling the original source.
Fucking over the artists is just a sideshow - icing on the cake. It's really about staying a small group of very big companies who make money by controling what you listen to.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Per the high risk of modern music and need for a high return, you're right. In fact, just like small businesses, they're quite risky. Guess what? If I get a loan for my small business, I make 100% of the money that customers pay me, and then I repay 100% of my loan from my proceeds. If I'm a signed musician, I get 7% of the money that customers pay for me, and then I repay 100% of my record company loans from my proceeds. Do you see a problem with this equation??
/.'ers make it seem to be.
Yes, I see a big problem. Go walk into your local bank and ask for a $7 million dollar loan so that your band, StinkySkivvies, can record an album and then go a world tour.
What? They didn't give it to you? Wow, finding capital must be harder than
WRONG. Contracts last for a set number of *albums* - there is absolutely no year limit. Also, the record company will *not* necessarily spend a given amount of capital promoting the artist - they will typically have X$$ to promote 10 groups out of the 20-30 they signed that year. The others will be cut at the end of the year.
Ok, so the artists who are truly talented get to enjoy a nice long career, and the one-hit wonders get to live the life of their dreams for a year.
Is there a problem with that? I'd quit my dayjob right now if I could go travel around the world and play my ukelele to packed arenas for a year.
It's no different than what happens in the business world. Some entrepreneurs have staying power, most don't. Oh well. Ride the wave while you can.
You mean Waylon Jennings? Merle Haggard? TLC? Guess what, between all of them, they have never received a royalty check despite selling tens of millions of records and CDs.
Really? You mean they've never sold their images for mechandising? Never had TV or movie opportunities? Never went on tour?
Wow, it really sucks when you don't know how to capitalize on a brand, doesn't it?
And since I don't have the means of verifying your comment, I'll leave it at that.
Are you a record company shrill? You speak like one. Courtney Love and Hole are not mega sellers, and likely will make less than $1 million net for their careers, divided by 4 members *and* 8-10 years. That comes out to $25,000-$31,000 per year per member before taxes - if they're lucky. 99% of all artists signed to the labels will not see a royalty check - coupons will be a necessity for them.
Read my prior comment again.
Love may or may not be getting much in royalties, but her record company has made a tremendous investment in the Courtney Love brand, something that they can't take away from her. If she hasn't capitalized on it, then its time to fire her manager and hire someone with some competence.
Too bad Linkin Park FUCKING SUCKS.
For more concentrated horror than just about anywhere on the net, check out the linkin park forums. you'll want to tear your eyeballs out after only a few minutes. OMG! ASL?!?!?
Linkin Park is just metalcore boyband: N'Sync with less dancing.
> What's stopping them from touring themselves,
A lot of difficulty booking venues due to being unknown..
> selling CDs themselves,
The cost of pressing CDs, the cost of manufacturing enough, the impossibility of getting them distributed..
> finding an independent label to take them on
> and give them a decent contract?
Why should the indie label do that when it KNOWS it can get the artist-hoser contract which is better for it?
> Set up a website to give away their mp3s to make
> them popular enough to have some push when they
> do sign with a big label?
Aaaa.. hem. The labels won't give a damn. They know that the band's alternative is going back to giving away MP3s (which is not professional musicianship). And getting people to download free stuff proves nothing about its quality.
> They can still be a band and make money..
Um, most of the options you've described above lose money.
> They sign their rights away because they want
> big money NOW, they don't want to wait.
No. You're very, very naive. The music industry is just like all other industries will eventually become in the present economic system: dominated by the big players who can never be toppled because their previous successes have given them enough power to crush competitors immediately they begin.