Slashdot Mirror
Musicians vs. RIAA At USA Today
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today has an article about the growing friction between recording artists and the 5 major labels which make up the RIAA. Many issues are covered, including copyright reform, fraudulent accounting on the part of record labels, and how selling a quarter million albums can leave you owing your label $14,000."
So, if the musicians don't like them, and we don't like them... why do they still exist?
levine
Take a look at P.Diddy (or whatever the hell he calls himself), he's sold millions upon millions of CDs, and yet he was dropped by his label for spending more money than he was making. Lavish demands... I agree the RIAA is evil, but these artists aren't that much less evil themselves... Especially the POP/RAP superstars... they are insane when it comes to their spending habits...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Non-musicians, like Brittany Spears, are the ones selling millions of records to people NOT like us.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Its a shame the RIAA won't accept its fate. Just like the typewriter gave way to the computer, they are steadily becomming obsolete. Artists will find ways to distribute their music cheaper and to a larger audience through the internet.
I hope that legislation doesn't allow a big dying industry to survive longer than it should.. it impedes both artists and consumers from moving forward and finding the best way for musicians (not the associated industry) to succeed.
An interesting article by all means. Perhaps the time has come for all artists, new upcomers or old timers, to seek an alternative distribution model. I have often thought, considering the very slim royalties most performers receive from CD sales, that simply selling tunes direct to the customer on a website could put the power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people who have the talent.
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Why do labor unions and the mob (some say one and the same) still exist?
Michael Jackson's recent high-profile leap onto the bandwagon was met with skepticism. In rallying support for his financial grievances against Sony Music, he asserted, "If you fight for me, you're fighting for all black people."
Sorry, I may have missed something. Why the link between Michael Jackson and black people?
"Miles Copeland, chairman of Ark 21 Records, predicts that passage could significantly harm 'the entire music business because of the very visible complaining by a few successful recording artists. If the mega artists succeed with this effort, I feel strongly that it would be at the expense of those artists who have not made it yet.'"
:)
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it might be bad to an executive like Copeland, who relies on sub-talented "artists" like Britney Spears to generate income for that new yacht. But this actually be the wakeup call needed to actually *develop* new artists, rather than toss them out there like so many Big Macs for huge immediate profits.
The whole industry needs an enema, and I am very happy to see some *real* artists starting to voice their concerns. There may be hope after all
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
You can read the original piece by the brilliant Steve Albini here, and probably lots of other places. Thanks to some slashdot comment I read last week but have since lost.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
I never thought of it like this before, but that's really what happens. What's worse - there's nothing more frustrating than a band changing labels -- the old label still owns all the band's old music, which unfortunately means that they take some pretty good stuff and stick it in a basement somewhere. This is where Janis Ian's suggestion of letting artist re-release their out-of-print stuff would really be of use. Of course, that would require the RIAA to give up some control...
Boy, did she get screwed.
First, her parents signed her up with Curb Records for TEN albums when she was 12. She grossed over $300,000,000 for Curb Records. That's right, a third of a billion dollars.
When her parents got divorced, her mom got to ride horses with the WalMart heirs, her dad lives in luxury, and Leann has enough to buy herself a used car.
There are laws that are supposed to protect child stars from getting fucked like this. There isn't a single honest judge to enforce them, though. Leann is suing her dad, her label, and probably her mother, agents, and promoters. It's the judges that will do her in.
If Jimmy Buffett has his way (and looks like he is attracting some takers), the RIAA has more to fear from J.B. than from P2P. Check out this article on Buffett leading the charge against the big labels. With CD's cheap and easy to make, the RIAA and the big labels that make it up are going to have a harder and harder time justifying their existence. They can keep blaming P2P, but they'd better wake up to the fact that they can't keep treating their artists and customers like dirt -- the artists and customers CAN and WILL get together with or without them. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore -- from Fruitcakes by J.B.
Life is short: void the warranty.
the article says that labels tend to contract 6-8 albums for an artist to produce. I wonder if this is a source of the poor music that has been coming out in recent years. Some artists may simply have one or two hits at the start of their career, getting the attention the labels, thus signing the artist. Then it turns out that the artist, having to roll out that many albums, does not have the talent in them to come up with enough good tunes that people want, leading to a decline in CD sales. All the one-hit-wonders are the ones getting signed by the big labels before the realization that they are one-hit-wonders.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
...Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore's music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits.....
I wonder if this includes the artists who died penniless. (Back pension to the widowed families)
What would be nice is if they could reverse the law that lets the Big-5 keep the copyrights forever. Retrieval of copyrights back to the family of deseased artists could be a form of income for them.
Although it's possible the Big-5 think of these as revenue for themselves, the fact is, they sit on them without re-releasing songs because it's not "profitable" to them. These families have smaller overhead, and it could be profitable for THEM.
*putting on my middle-america editor's hat*
"Major problems from the many things that just don't go together"
or, *putting on my talk show editor's hat*
"Hillary Rosen: RIAA peace maker or victim of child abuse?"
I'll have to agree with you though - that sentence required at least a high school level reading ability.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid.
bingo!
-- james
Frank Sinatra once stepped in and demanded a black artist get his royalties. Can't remember the artist's name? Who was it?
"It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight."
Welcome to capitalism.
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system," says Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. "The time where accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots."
Someone UNDERSTOOD something Richards SAID!?
He talks like Prince writes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
And today on NYSE, NOFX is going public...
but seriously, why not? Just like you buy stocks if you feel a corporation will strike gold, would it not make sense to do the same with music ?
5 major labels which make up the RIAA
RIAA exists to further the interests (as they perceive them anyway) of the 5 major record labels that created it. The odd thing is that the record labels would rather legislate and sue themselves into further power and existance rather than deliver any sort of value to the customer. It seem to be a loosing strategy to me.
I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots.
Anyone else get a laugh out of the fact that Keith Richards is derisively calling anyone a dinosaur ??
The price of CDs themselves is way too outrageous. In many cases, the cd isn't worth the 20 dollars you have to fork over to buy it with. Somewhere, some place down the line, someone is making a fat profit on these cds. Does it really cost that much money to get a plastic case, a little booklet, and maybe a bit of paint on a cd? In this mass-producing-touch-of-a-button world? Say the most expensive CDs would only cost 9 or 10 dollars. Sales would surge since you could buy double as many disks. I for one would love to buy more cds, espically if they cost less. Sure you can find cds that are that price already online, or maybe in the bargin bin of your local Best Buy, but I mean major new releases. Don't you think more copies would fly off the shelf if the new pop hit cd came out at $9.99 instead of $18.99 in your local mall? Sell 10,000 copies at a lower price, and make more than you would if you sold 5,000 copies at a higher price. Of course from the industry's point of view, if you can sell 10,000 copies... sell 10,000 copies at the highest price possible. Got to get that gold plated Lexus, after all.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
What is going to finally solve the dillema though? I mean, if you enact tougher laws in the United States against certain practices of the RIAA, what is stopping them from moving offshore to a more "business" favorable country?
In my opinion, the artists themselves are the only ones able to remove this threat, as they are the bread and butter at issue. If the top stars pseudo-unionized, there would probably be a better control over the Cartel^H^H^H^H^H^H RIAA.
Why don't we just get all our music on Kazaa, or Gnutella or what not... freely trade it and if you like the some song, mail money directly to the artist?
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Many issues are covered, including copyright reform, fraudulent accounting on the part of record labels, and how selling a quarter million albums can leave you owing your label $14,000."
Meanwhile, at the bottom of the article page, it says "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. -- Alexander Pope"
very fitting.
See, this is why i don't buy anything from the RIAA anymore, aside from the fact that I don't want my money going to fund copyright laws that I don't want. If i want to hear them bad enough, I'll go see them when they come to town, if I hear about it, since I don't listen to the radio...but thats what band websites are for.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
"And these renegotiated deals don't tend to tack on a lot of extra albums or dramatically increase the artist's obligation"
Which is to say that they could tend to tack on a few extra albums or moderately increase the artist's obligation, in addition to tacking on a lot of extra albums and/or dramatically increasing the artist's obligation in a smaller proportion of cases.
What it comes down to is this: If they're conning the artists who have been in the business a long time, they're hardly going to tell it to USA Today straight, are they?
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.
Perhaps they'd lose less money (and maybe make some?) if their tastes and qualifications were a little more discriminating.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Well duh! Hello! They're performers, they're supposed to be vocal, or instrumental or something. I bet the writer was saving that one up for years.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Face it, most people want to hear the stuff that's on the radio-- over-produced, simplistic, commercialized goo, and we can't stand if it's not a singable tune. That's why only 5% of the artists have a hit-- because the record companies know they can't make money unless they find a musician who happens to fit that (very rare) formula. Even if they do sign an innovative group or individual, they know hardly anyone will buy the record, because they know we have horrible taste, or that we, for whatever reason, are less likely to buy it.
I work at a music store, and 99% of the requests I get are for musicians who they heard on the radio or TV. People want to be hand-fed good music, then complain when it's not good. The record companies are only trying to feed the customer what they seem to want, which is not necessarily good music.
If they lose $6 Million for each hit you'd think they'd want to minimize the chances for hits.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was a record producer for fifteen years and got out of the business because it simply sickened me. Here's an example:
Artists are paid a points royalty on sale of master recordings (while songwriters are paid publishing royalties on the sales of songs). 15% (15 points) is quite a good royalty for a new band, or even one with a hit under their belt.
But does that mean 15 points off all sales? Nope.
It means 15% of 90% of the worldwide gross. Why 90%?
Because in the 1940's (when the label business models we hate so much were established) lacquer records were still sold and many of them broke in shipment. A 10% "breakage allowance" was standard.
It still is. CDs don't break. But the labels, almost without exception, skim 10% off the top for "breakage" before even getting to recoupment. If IBM skimmed 10% off their earnings before issuing dividends the Board would be crucified. But music labels? No problem!
As for recoupment, the example given in the USA Today article is tame. I won't mention the name, but there is a band who has sold millions, for each of their more than five albums. But each time, video costs, recording costs, marketing/promotion costs, plane fares (for huge label entourages), hotel bills (for these same label execs) were all paid for by the band.
Sum total? They sold 35 million records and still OWE the label over 2 million dollars.
The system was devised in the 40's and has no place in the 21st Century. Hilary Rosen can whine all she wants, but the labels are truly in serious trouble due to their religious adherence to these ancient business models.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
A state law exempting record labels from maximum contract lengths? Ewww.
Heh. Tom Petty making an album slamming the industry. I think I may have to keep an eye out for this one. XD I bet he'll stand his ground ... won't be turned around! :3 Didn't hear about Michael Jackson.
I really hope this makes a difference. It's disgusting to have really neat artists like Tori and Björk that I feel guilty buying albums from because they're on major labels. A world where entertainment is tainted because of its distributor is a world gone wrong. (Well, aside from all the other, more screwed up stuff ^^;)
I'm not really a big music fan (only listen to it on my way to/from work.) My wife, on the other hand is an avid fan of several bands. She has told me of several that have made their own records under their own label, and built from that to making records for other bands under those labels. Those bands, incidentally, are also big supporters of operations like napster.
:-)
Unfortunately, most sheep (er, consumers) don't care about the politics or anything because they're not told to. They're just told to go buy such and such's album because it is cool. You don't want to be different, do you?
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
...Wayne Kramer, founder of punk's seminal MC5, felt some empathy for embattled record execs after he established his label, MuscleTone, last year.
"I have a new respect for how hard it is to run a label, and I know record companies lose money on most bands," Kramer says....
What the hell? True, I'm not an ex-punk band leader or label maker, but not being able to sell bad music in a 10 block radius shouldn't be a gauge.
Maybe some type of co-op is needed. A huge number of artists get together, and with power in numbers (and dollars) able to procure the cheapest marketing, distribution, and processing they can get for their dollars. Figure out the costs, and that's what you charge the artist to put out a new record. Profits can go to the artist, with maybe a small percentage going to the investment of the co-op. Merchandise, touring/concerts, part of the working equation. Make rMTv channel (r=real) to play their own videos. Crack into the radio stations market to play their own music only.
*sigh* Probably impossible to do with the monopoly in place.
But then again, maybe it has been done, and the RIAA = the co-op.
While intentionally not paying royalties is obviously fraudulent accounting. The traditional system of applying overhead to jobs also needs to be eliminated because they're charging artists for idle time that's not the artists' fault, but the fault of the Labels. Take recording for instance. If a recording studio applies overhead based on the estimated number of studio hours they think they'll incur throughout the year, the overhead cost will be more per studio hour than if the studio applied overhead based on capacity of recording hours available which is the way it should be done. Artists should only have to pay for the time, labor, and materials it takes to produce their own albums, not the studio's idle time because they can't get enough business. While this will result in underapplied overhead for the studio and an increase in cost of sales, that's not the artists' fault and it shouldn't be their problem. The Labels and the studios need to find a way to bring their actual recording hours closer to capacity to get their profit margin back rather than overcharging the artists for it which is, unfortunately, still legal in the USA. This is why an album can sell 250,000 copies and still leave an artist owing money, because they're sticking it to them by overapplying overhead.
The income statement is a little hard to follow. For one thing, it doesn't have proper indenting for sub-items, so it's hard to tell which things should really be added up.
For those who think it's okay for bands to make nothing on recordings since they make all their money on tours--this band lost money on tours, which is typical, from what I understand.
So people can read more of USA's delightful "words", here's a proper URL to the article.
- 15 -artists-rights_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09
You can buy mp3s of every Epitaph release (even the out of print ones I believe) from Emusic, then do what ever you want with them, like make your own mixed cds.
I hope the 5 crash and burn.
Here's a shocker: Hilary is on a salary of $1.4 million a year, with all travel, clothing, food and personal incidentals added as expenses, plus three "business" residences.Total comp package: about 2.7 million a year. Jack Valenti gets at least 1.5 million more. A YEAR.
And you wonder why she is so tencious about ideas which any sane person would laugh at?
Because she only cares about what most people care about: their own asses. If the music industry no longer has a need for the RIAA, what else could she possibly be qualified for?
"In the past 20 years, an industry that was led by visionaries and music lovers has become dominated by accountants, financial analysts and people who can't think ahead more than 90 days."
Sounds a lot like the software industry
It is clearly time for change. When artists have such slave-like contracts - low pay and few rights - there is no wonder talented, smart people stay out of the recording industry.
Stop the brainwash
Robert Fripp of King Crimison once said its like your taking a loan out on your own song. Every time you record. You pay interest and annuity for the rights to play your own tunes
"Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."
Hillary Rosen was just tugging at my heart strings with this quote. I mean, who knew that the record publishing houses were really just there to work for the artist and to pour millions of dollars into making records just so one poor little musician could recognize their dream!
This shows the reality for most musicians. Of course there are few that are paid correctly, the most famous ones, of course, like Metallica. These musicians think that everybody else receives their payments the way they receive.
It's a shame, but by paying right for some, they create a small legion of artists that try to convince people that everything is ok the way it is (and of course fight for RIAAs interests)
Now we all have proofs that Metallica fought against Napster because they really believe that every other musicians receive their payments.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
You have a point, but you forgot a rather important factor when it comes to these kids (btw, i dislike them as much as you sound too, so don't get me wrong)...these kids are only buying and listening to music that they're exposed to. Although their music choice may suck, it's related to what kind of choices there are for the kid out at Best Buy. Honestly, most dumbass 18 year olds are gonna buy what they've heard on the radio or seen on MTV than stuff that's on their local college radio station, or used to be on internet radio stations like SomaFM (R.I.P). In this case, it's Jay-Z or Britney, and not a group with more talent and drive.
Like I said before, don't get me wrong. I LOVE hip hop, and consider myself very knowledgable about it. Unlike these kids wearing upside down visors and being dropped off by their soccer mom at the mall, though, I grew up the city. I had the benefit of going to a high school with an abundance of kids my age who exposed me to groups like Atmosphere, Company Flow, and Rascoe instead of a slew of shitty musicians with one-name monikers (Britney, Puffy, and Pink come to mind).
Bottom line is that the kids are just a product of their environment (in general), and unless they have someone to expose them to better alternatives than the groups on MTV, they're gonna take that allowance and buy shitty CDs. As a parent, if you don't want this to happen, EXPOSE THEM TO GOOD MUSIC!. Trust me, I plan on doing this as soon as my kid can breathe.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
For an insiders look at how the record industry works check out "Hit Men" by Frederic Dannen (a nom de plume) No one is completely certain who wrote it though no one has ever questioned the facts it contains.
The book came out in 1990 most of the players have remained the same.
If that doesn't completely scare you read "All You Need to Know About The Music Business" by Donald S. Passman. This book is written mostly for working musicians, but his dissection of a standard record contract is well worth the read.
In the article, Tom Waits is quoted as saying:
It's a nightmare to be trapped in one. I'm on a good label (Epitaph) now that's not part of the plantation system. But all the old records I did for Island have been swallowed up and spit out in whatever form they choose.
But Epitaph is a member of the RIAA:
http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm
Over the last few months I've wanted to buy a few new CDs, but each time I look up the label and find that they're in the RIAA, so I've refused to buy it.
What to do? Is there a way to avoid the label? To buy the music without supporting the label?
Or are labels like "Epitaph" good-guys, without any power to avoid RIAA's politics?
It's nice to see that Record Labels are just as good at screwing the people "they invest in" as a lot of the Venture Capitalists that finance startups. Invest in 'em and then own 'em forever and make all the money, while the real talent (musicians, engineers) get the royal shaft. Nice and fair. Uh huh..
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
This has got to be the best quote of the article, from Hilary Rosen, "Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."
k.
--even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
> As for recoupment, the example given in the USA Today article is tame. I won't mention the name, but there is a band who has sold millions, for each
> of their more than five albums. But each time, video costs, recording costs, marketing/promotion costs, plane fares (for huge label entourages), hotel
> bills (for these same label execs) were all paid for by the band.
>
> Sum total? They sold 35 million records and still OWE the label over 2 million dollars.
Clearly expenses need to be recovered, and these are real expenses for the label. A side issue here is the old, "somebody else's problem." In this case, the labels can rack up any sort of expenses they see fit, and chalk it up against the artists' royalties. They have even less incentive to control their costs than a government contractor!
The USA Today article mentioned "transparency", but clearly even what was proposed didn't go far enough. Transparency is also needed on the label's overhead expenses. Perhaps artists would look to sign with a label with more competitive expenses.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
For the better part of my 20's, I was in 'the industry'. Either in a band trying to crack it or livin the poor musician lifestyle with most of my friends being either musicians or in 'the industry'.
The Stevel Albini blurb is an excellent read. If you're not a Hootie or Britney or Korn type (even korn being huge is weird) they you're either 100% screwed or you're never gonna make it or you're gonn land on an indie or start your own label.
Me, I tried the start your own label after 'not making it'. 'The industry' is not anything remotely to do with bringin artistic capabilities to the listening public. It is 100% about 'product', how to get that 'product' into the hands of as many people as possible and what the next 'hit' is gonna be. When 'the industry' says it loses $6mil on most acts, big fucking deal, it's your own fault. Because:
- they've completely run all the mom and pop record stores outta biz = no loyal fanbase at a word of mouth price = $3mil for radio (ugh, clear channel) & mtv promotions = Accountant: 'shit, we couldn't clear out the other 10mil units of Susie Johnson cuz people are sick of her already.' CEO: 'scerew her then. alright, dump the cd's in some poor country and jack up the fees 10% on the next 10 new acts'.
- recording an album in a pro studio is horrendiously expensive ($5k for a guy to come in a tune the room is pretty fucked up)
- they sign shitty cookie cutter bands! any orginality, forget it.
- Jim Lawer charges $500/hr. John CEO makes 10x more than Jim.
This being said, I would vomit profusely like a posessed demon and kill myself if it wasn't for many of the real musicians and labels. Look at Fugazi and Dischord. That is it!. They live the music, they do well and they don't fuck eveyone ever and drive away at the end of the day to their mansion on the hill and preach all this rhetoric shit like Rosen does.
Once you get back to the real deal about music, which is (and I don't give one rats ass what Kid Rock says - yah, lets see what he thinks in 10 years when he's been milked dry and tossed aside) that it's art and expression. Period!
Sure, you can make money at it, but 'the industry' is soooo lopsided right now that the RIAA/Rosen claims make me laugh. This stuff all ties in also with the MPAA and p2p (duh!) and DRM. These groups have been stifling artists rights for some time and now their only recourse, after 'the people' as in we, have spoken, is to go after us. Threatening to pass legislation to get 'copyrighted' material off our computers if need be!
What you can do:
1. Don't buy trash crap from Britney and the like
2. Smash your MTV (they're literally nothing but a delivery vehicle for the big 5, period!)
3. Get into your local scene. This is where the best stuff always is. And if there isn't one, make one!
4. If you find you have a p2p song that's been 'doctored' remove it. This will keep the good stuff flowin and the rage against the machine growin.
So, there is stuff we can do. We just have to get off our asses and do it. Or, lay down with the wolves...
"The record companies are like cartels, like countries, for God's sake," singer/songwriter Tom Waits says. "It's a nightmare to be trapped in one. I'm on a good label (Epitaph) now that's not part of the plantation system.
but according to the riaa membership page epitaph is part of the problem. i've been trying to avoid purchasing music from artists signed under labels that are members of the riaa. am i wrong to want to do this?
Here's the classic reverse racism: You feel righteous stating that "WHITE" people have no right to determine who is "black" (despite many coloured comedians making fun of Mr. Jackson, and many in the "black" community shunning him for apparently being ashamed of his roots), and go on to proclaim that the AC must be "white". If you want to see a stunning racist, take a look in the mirror you hippocrit.
I really don't get this holier than thou attitude from people against the RIAA. If you have $200K to invest in an unknown artist to produce and market his/her album, by all means, put your money where your mouth is. If you think AOL is making so much money, go ahead and invest in it. But that's not what's happening. For every superstar that makes the record company a million dollars there's five failures that lose the record company a couple hundred thousand. Yes, in the end the record company usually makes a profit, but on average that profit is generally only a few percent a year of the amount of money that had to be invested to earn that profit. That's the way capitalism works. If you can't afford the capital, you work for someone else. If you've got a better solution, I'd like to hear it.
Dear Record Labels:
You are so screwed.
Here's hoping you take as good as you give,
A satisfied ex-customer
P.S. METALLICA FOREVER!!!
Remember that some of the lavish lifestyle is paid for by studio advances. Which can put the artist in debt to the studio more or less forever. But more to the point, studios (music or movie) have encouraged the glitteratzi lifestyle since waaaaay back, because glamour SELLS. They don't really give a damn if an artist lives in a cardboard box, so long as it has a fantastic facade to attract the buying public's notice.
Tho IMO this is itself an outdated technique from the 1950s, when the average American was still thinking in terms of pinching pennies to buy his first used car. The glamour front gave the public something to dream about and wish for, and that SOLD movies and music.
Over the past decade or so, the typical first-world lifestyle has moved "upward" and there's no longer such stark contrast between the average consumer and the "artist lifestyle", and we're no longer all wide-eyed with wonder at the marvelous novelty of recorded film and music.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The point of the original comment was that Jackson's beef with SONY has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Him calling upon it as a rallying cry is pathetic and detracts from the issue at hand.
If a musician defends even one aspect of copyright, then that person is a dinosaur. But nobody listens to these posts.
Rev. Sharpton seemed to have no problem with the speech when it was made. It was only have the guys that kick back the $$$ to him did he change his tune a day or so later. If you watched a video of the speech Jackson made at NAN, you will see the African American audience was in complete support of Jackson's comments. They believed Jackson's beef.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Al Sharpton is an opportunistic vulture. Nobody's taken him seriously for several years. Besides, Michael suprised even Sharpton when he called Tommy Mottola a racist (see the MTV article).
Race is entirely a social construct. There is only one race, the human race. We're all the same color, just different shades. It is easily possible to be closer genetically to a person of a different so-called race, than somebody that looks fairly similar to yourself.
if ther eis so little profit per album for the actual artist why don't they start doing their own albums. Recording studios can be rented for those that don't build them into their houses. distribute them over the internet. we'll burn our own to not give the corporate succubuses anything. Broadband is becoming a reality. lets pay the people who deserve it.
And you state this as an Anonymous Coward?
Hmmm...Pot, Kettle, Honky.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I'd like to know why the message from "toupsie" wasn't modded "Troll"; it more than meets the criteria.
Should I assume that you're black because you're assuming that anyone who might say something that could possibly be construed as being NEGATIVE against a black person MUST be white?
I also *really* like how you've gone and blown someone's obvious and overdone joke about Jacko's lilly white complexion into a racial issue. Whow. KKK? NAN? I don't know about everyone else, but I *KNOW* that I can see the relevance of that.
Lastly, since turn about is fair play, if I were to make an assumption on you, toupsie, using the same logic(?) that you appeared to use on the AC making the "anti-Jacko" post, it would be that you're an overly PC liberal/socialist democrat who enjoys long walks on the beech, raising taxes, perscription drug plans, affirmitive action, social security, welfare spending, and BITCHING INCESSANTLY about trivial matters.
A troll is a troll is a troll, is a troll; regardless of if they're PC or not. You, sir, are a troll.
P.S. One could also debate that Al Sharpton doesn't know who is or is not black better than anyone else, because, as you say it "Race is not a skin color but an ethnicity". Hmmmm... no hyprocracy in your post.
Just because that reply was done by an AC doesn't change the validity.
Furthermore, your failure to address the points made against you in that statement make you look less credible.
Lastly, your "Honky" statement takes away any remaining credibility that you may have had.
Hmmmmm.... GOOD DAY DUMBASS.
My wife is about to finish up her debut album in a few weeks. The total costs for recording, mixing, mastering, and artwork look like they're going to be under $15,000 and it sounds very professional.
For duplication, we're looking at about $1.50 per disc for an initial run of 1000.
Her engineer / co-producer is getting a nominal percentage of the profit.
So for under $20,000 an artist can record and release an album independently and keep almost all of the profits.
The real trick is that we don't have the marketing muscle that the big labels have, so it will take a while to get the music out to people who will actually want to buy the album. However, between local gigs, local and college radio stations, and having a web presense, we are optimistic that we can get the ball rolling.
See all those TV ads for CDs you never heard of? The ones touted as "not available in stores?"
These are the ones that bypass this mess. Buy from them!
In the comments, the Salon series on crooked radio stations and the labels that enable them is linked. Read it and scream.
I can state with some certainty that you are full of shit.
"U R Racist" trolls are like fart jokes... they are lame and ineffective. When you grow up to be an adult troll you will learn this for yourself.
In the meantime, you should probably know that your opinion carries no more validity here than any AC posting. How do you like them apples?
- Toby
...Janice Ian used some fucking foresight and retained her copyrights rather than assigning them to her record company. Oh but wait...then she wouldn't have anything to complain about.
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
That is not entirely true. Sharpton made no negative comments about Jackson's speech until after he was confronted by several African American artists with financial interests in SONY and fund Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network through donations. Rev. Sharpton is also, according to latest polling data, a more respected Democratic Presidential Candidate than Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. That appears to be an individual that is being taken seriously. The African American community takes him very seriously as shown by his widespread support.
Race is entirely a social construct.
Try telling that to Sam Moore. His life might have been more financially constructive if he was white.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
First
The old economist saying, "does this make you better off?" isn't true anymore. Sympathy mongers for the record industry brass like to say how the artists' fame wouldn't be possible without them, and that just isn't true anymore. In the old days, their monopoly was solid, and exposure required selling yourself to them on their terms. Now with the Internet, and CD burners, and many other nice features of the present as opposed to the past, you can be independant. The technology is there for you now so that music you create can stay yours. Years from now, whether you made a profit or not, you'll regret not having ownership of your labour of life. You'll probably more regret seeing your songs put on some awful compilation or soundtrack for some terrible movie.
Second
This article makes the record industry sound like a horrible negative sum game: enormous losses on everything, huge upfront expenses and dealings with ornery artists, pain and suffering all around. They forget that it's slightly noticable that the whole business is turning a profit. The ad machines go nonstop. Radio stations pay them to play crapola music that is little more than an advertisement for an artist. With all the supposed losses incurred due to p2p file trading, why hasn't the industry folded yet? Remember that they can always say whatever they want. They aren't bound by honor or truth and that they'll always do anything they can to make the most money they can, period.
Unless they hid most of the profits in shell companies, continued to hold non-executive directorships (working one day a week), take unsecured loans against the company, and use share options to make millions, on top of seven figure salaries. And then retire from the company, with two years salary as "severance", and a pension in perpetuity paid for by the company.
If sharpton is representing the majority of black people arround the world, I feel very sorry for them. That guy has almost not credability anymore.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
While you might have a point with the critque. It is being a bit harsh. Sure enough race is not a skin colour. But you have to admit that he has some serious mental issues.
Consider this way. If I was white and decided to run around with black makeup all over my body all the time and it was obvious that I was white, what would you say? Honestly what would you say? You would say I am nut and totally politically incorrect. You might even say I am insulting the black race or something like that. I think that is what people have an issue with when it comes to Micheal Jackson and not his skin colour.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I didn't know you could determine the contents of my digestive tract. Makes me wonder where your head must be.
"U R Racist" trolls are like fart jokes... they are lame and ineffective. When you grow up to be an adult troll you will learn this for yourself.
Saying Michael Jackson is white as an insult is racist. The man suffers from a skin disease that causes the pigmitation to dilute called Vitiligo. Only an insenstive jerk would verbally punish a man because of a disease.
In the meantime, you should probably know that your opinion carries no more validity here than any AC posting. How do you like them apples?
Coming from someone that delights in the verbal torture of a man because of a skin disease, I think I can stomach those Apples.
Nice try, Troll.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
According to Democratic President Candidate polls, Reverend Sharpton has a lot of credibility in the Democratic Party.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
A couple of weeks ago I got an email advertising Tom Petty's new single, "The Last DJ", mentioned in this article. Although I'm not even a casual fan, I checked it out anyway... Definately worth a listen for anyone opposed to the Clear Clannel-ification of radio and the trend towards pay-per-play. Hard to beleive his label let him put this song on the CD let alone promote it as his first single!
It seems the streaming version is gone but you might be able to request it at a local rock & roll station.
"The Last DJ"
Well you can't turn him into a company man
You can't turn him into a whore
And the boys upstairs just don't understand anymore
Well the top brass don't like him talking so much
And he won't play what they want to play
And he don?t want to change what don't need to change
CHORUS:
There goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey hey hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
There goes the last DJ
While some folks said you gotta hang him so high
Cause you just can't do what he did
There's some things you just can't put in the minds of the kids
As we celebrate mediocrity
Our boys upstairs want to see
How much you want to pay for what you used to get for free
CHORUS
Well he got in a station down in Mexico
And sometimes it'll kind of come in
And I'll bust a move and remember how it was back then
CHORUS
If you have a skin disease that makes you black, I could understand. Michael Jackson suffers from Vitiligo. That is why his skin is light, it is being discolored by the disease and he is trying for a constant tone with his medical treatment. I know a few people with the disease and the verbal torture that they receive from those that do not understand it is shameful.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Perhaps artists would look to sign with a label with more competitive expenses
Such as have somebody like Bad_CRC, Neil Cicierega or Veloso make their video. If it worked for "Invasion of the Gabber Robots" by TLMOM featuring Toaplan, "Hyakugojyuuichi" by Nintendo, and "Yatta" by Happatai, it'll work for any song.
Or you could just drink Ritalin like most Dance Dance Revolution players do.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Is this the promised end? Or image of that horror? KING LEAR
Race is not a skin color but an ethnicity.
Here is the usage note from
1.A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3.A genealogical line; a lineage.
4.Humans considered as a group.
So, there are many sides to race, one of them being skin color, another ethnicity. In light of this, I think Jackson fails on both accounts. Aside from the obvious skin color bit, he is so far removed from 99.999% of the U.S. population, it is difficult to imagine that he has anything in common with other African Americans at this point.
Casca
I've talked to black people who call themselves africans, african americans, jamaicans, and americans. One of them told me personally that they were offended by the thought of all being grouped into "black" when they fill out forms. Which would suggest they believe their race is completely independent of their skin color, and that your statement about their race would offend them.
I think this is a trap that people without competition fall into. They start to think that a problem they are having is a problem anyone else who tries to do what they do would have. Or whatever obstacle they are facing would be just as bad or worse for someone else.
In this case, they are suggesting that they couldn't do their job without wasting millions of dollars on failed artists. That seems rediculous to me, but I bet they (or at least some of them) believe it.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
I've been hinting at something like every time this topic has come up. The artists who rely on the RIAA are every bit as much a part of the problem as those who continue to buy the media produced by the RIAA. It is a systemic problem, and unless the RIAA is forced to change (not by law, but by necessity), it won't happen. And if it does, there will be a few bumps in the road along the way.
BTW...when I say "by necessity" I mean this: The artists will not sign with them, and the consumers will not buy its products, UNTIL it changes its business practices. I do NOT mean that it's OK for self-proclaimed freedom fighters to continue stealing copyrighted material.
And I assume you must be a martian because you are hiding behind a slashdot pseudonym. What right do you martians have to say anything at all about how one Earthling describes another?
Blacks vote over 90% Democrat, and also largely vote black when given the opportunity. Sharpton and Jackson are the only two "name" people at that level. Basically, Sharpton has the "honor" of being considered better than Jackson. He's only a frontrunner due to an even greater lack of true leadership than exists throughout the rest of the political system. That's not being taken seriously -- it's winning by default.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
Unfortunately, he keeps reinforcing a victim mindset.
I've seen the video. The crowd BOOOOED him. Tommy Mattola apparently has a good rep in the african-american community, and they didn't like Jackson's comments. I don't know what you're talking about.
Is this the promised end? Or image of that horror? KING LEAR
An interesting article by all means.
It might have been somewhat interesting but it most certainly could have been better. Take this snipit, for example:
Industry studies point out that for every hit the business scores, it loses $6.3 million on albums that tank. Fewer than 5% of signed artists deliver a hit.
These are meaningless statistics because it doesn't say how much money a hit is worth. If every "hit the business scores" is worth $50 million, than that $6.3 million number is quite acceptable. They shouldn't compare apples with oranges -- that doesn't help us understand whether the point being made is valid or not.
GMD
watch this
My sister has that disorder. It causes small (SMALL) patches of white due to the body's immune system killing off pigment cells.
The condition can be arrested, and the skin will return to its usual color most of the time, given enough tanning. Of course, if you're nuts, you could just bleach the rest of your skin to match.
I don't think that even occured to my sister at the time.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Other reasons:
I'm sure there's lots of other things to take onto that list, but my point is the RIAA has a lot more control over that statistic than they will admit. Therefore one must conclude that they really like the status quo.
Don't Forget KRS-ONE who enlightens us all.
Do a google for a few articles, he definately knows what's up.
The only thing worse is seeing ignorant niggers trying to talk white, right? Acting like theyz erudite and shit.
You must be white, because I'm sure the yuppies at the bar would cut it out as soon as they saw a brother walk by.
The people you need to worry about talking like that are young black kids. The yuppies aren't going to go out tomorrow and start gang-banging.
Wha? He nearly got booed off the stage... Unless I'm thinking of the wrong speech...
btw. Sharpton frightens me.
black & white are also not skin colors, and technically, are not even colors. I noticed that afro-americans are more of a dark brownish shade, and caucasian american are yellowish-pink. Even asians are not yellow. Get your pentone together before lashing at someone over something so futile.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
I don't want to go on a rant here...
So I won't. Maybe some other time.
Right. disease...
Also explains the nose, I'm sure...
and the cheeks.
So funny, so true!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
If the buying public, whatever its racial composition, promotes/demands gangsta rap, and major media channels subsequently market and promote that image, then you have demand controlling production.
A young kid who might choose to stay in school finds instead that he can command the respect of his peers by selling drugs and defending his territory. He learns this because he sees it happening in his environment and he chooses to do the same because everything tells him it's cool to do so: his peers, his enemies, his media.
The relationship between the privileged promoting a way of life by voting with their dollars is a partial cause, yes, but a cause nonetheless.
blog
I don't follow the music world closely enough to say whether this attitude is justified.
I would like to point out, however, that if you "aren't in it for the money", you shouldn't be surprised if you don't make any. If you are a professional musician, that's your job. And I think we all know that when you have a job, it's not all the rewarding beautiful stuff. There's also that part where we (be we cabinetmakers, coders, drummers, or whoever) rent out our talents for money, in pursuit of someone else's dreams.
I'm just trying to say it seems a little unrealistic to believe that the music trade will be so much different.
Let us instead consider that it is not so much that information wants to be free, but that people want information to be free. And there are many folks who sincerely believe that intellectual property is wrong, and act accordingly.
Without the RIAA's jackbooted muscle to squelch Napster, how is the direct-download-marketing of music supposed to work? How long before the new album show up on gnutella/gnapster/gwherever?
In essence, this scheme would make music supported by voluntary donations from fans. And turn it from a profession into a hobby.
The RAC has a good web site: http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/
Would you still share music illegally if the artist was getting the money directly?
I think the biggest reason that a lot of people laugh off issues about music sharing is because we all know that the people complaining about music theft are the company fat cats, not the starving artists. The individual artist really isn't that affected when people share their music.
Check the numbers.
The RIAA lists around 800 recording companies as members. There are probably around 1,000 artists per recording company.
Say Billy BadGuy hooks up with his 50 friends, each of which has 200 CDs that they have all ripped.
By some magical twist of fate, no two people have the same CD, so we have a total of 10,000 different CDs that exist on the network to be illegally shared.
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 800 recording companies = $200 per company
Realistically there are probably only about 20 recording companies that likely produced the majority of those CDs.
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 20 real recording companies = $8,000 per company
On the artists side of the fence, if we assume that we have 10,000 different artists:
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 10,000 artists = $16 per artist
Realistically there are probably a few repeats, let's say 1/4 of the CDs are paired up with one other from the same artist. That means that 2,500 CDs belong to 1,250 artists, and the remaining 7,500 CDs belong to 7,500 artists.
(2,500 CDs * $16) / 1,250 artists = $32 per artist (for 1,250 artists)
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 8,750 artists = ~$18.29 per artist (average for artists)
Pair all of this up with the average number of (signed) artists in the world:
(7,500 artists + 1,250 popular artists) / 800,000 artists = 0.0109375
That means that 1 percent of the artists are paying about $18 per 50 geeks sharing files, with the majority of them paying only $16.
Now to poke at the RIAA's numbers some. They reported that they lost around 600 million dollars from 2000 to 2001 because of illegal file sharing. Using our above example:
$600,000,000 lost / (10,000 CDs * $16) = 3,750 occurrences
That means that the above example of 50 people with 200 unique CDs would have to have been repeated (uniquely) almost 3,750 times in order for the RIAA's posted losses to be correct.
3,750 cases * 51 people per case = 191,250 unique naughty people
(How many users are on SlashDot?)
On top of that, their numbers would fail again if any one of the almost 200,000 people bought any CDs based on what they heard on these networks.
Now any monkey with a keyboard should be able to sit here with these numbers and crunch out some figures, but in 99 out of 100 calculations, you're going to see this:
Recording Artists + Recording Companies = RIAA Monopoly
Besides all our fun number crunching, the article had some pretty good points.
"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid."
Not only do they still own the house, they can kick you out of it, sell it, and keep all the money.
Then when you try to buy a new house with a different bank, they sue your ass!
"...virtually all contracts renegotiated after a hit album added terms favoring the artist..."
Well that's a no-brainer. Think of it as a poor man with a $5,000 house that the bank is trying to repossess. All of a sudden he wins the lotto and has $500,000,000. You can bet that bank will be a lot nicer, hoping he will keep all of his money in their bank accounts.
"Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."
Wonderfully vague statement that should be fun to pick apart.
They neglect to mention that the blood they give is being sucked out of all the other artists that they've screwed over, and that the dreams they are realizing are for their own billion dollar mansions in La Hoya.
Artists know record companies have been screwing people out of their dreams for years.
To make another parallel, imagine that you want to buy a car so that you can go to work and make some money. So you go to your local GM dealer and find out that you have to pay them a bunch of money over a few years for the car. Ok that's not too bad, but wait...
It's not surprising that independent artists end up happily riding horses for most of their career. Sure you might not be able to get on the expressway, but if your ass hurts from too much riding at least you can get off of the horse.
"You have record companies bought and sold on the strength of copyrights created by artists who sign away all rights in perpetuity to a faceless corporation."
Who knew Don Henley was so eloquent?
With you guys??
... "
"... It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight
Sheesh, an opportunity to get rid of the only thing the labels do - be middleman between artists and consumers.
P2P Networks and the technology is being sued out of existance by big labels and the RIAA. These guys are trying to get around the labels from the other side and we should be supporting and encouraging their efforts. I know my life would probably be better off without big labels, and the RIAA out there.
Telephone companies are not our friends, but artists? Come on...
Between consumers and artists the big labels could be squeezed out completely.
Quit with the hypocracy, the complaining and realize this is an opportunity to ditch the labels that apparently lots of artists AND fans hate.
m
"Who needs ya'? Think about it baby, who needs you?
Now you can save your lip, just pack your grip
And leave a trail of smoke behind you
Who needs ya'? Can you tell me baby, who needs you?
Who needs you? Think about it baby
Well, who needs you? Can you tell me please?"
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
I read the article in question, and I've heard before the arguments that the major recording labels regularly withhold as much as 40% of artists royalties, but there were 3 things in this article that really leaped off the page for me...
...this may sound a bit like heresy, but I reluctantly agree. Recording artists are *not* employees. They are not paid a wage. They don't get paid by the hour. What they have is purely a contractual arrangment of service for renumeration. It's up to *them* to put away a portion of their earnings for retirement JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE who is self-employed. End of story here...
...maybe if the *execs* weren't swanning about in limos and helicopters like they insist their artists do to maintain their "Image", there might just be a few more bucks left over after the whole recording/tour shebang is over. No?...
...boy o' boy, they sure have. And when they are not giving the artists what they want (i.e. a fair go), and they are not giving the consumers what they want (i.e. a *viable* purchasing and fair-use alternative), then I see any number of sites doing similar to what Prince is doing, and acting as the middle-man for downloading their music, becoming all the more common.
"Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits."
"...earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties."
"They've alienated consumers and artists."
I can't remember the details, my dad (a serious music collector and follower of music news) told me about just such a thing. They are still small, but it's a recording label that allows musicians to keep their copyrights and has more musician friendly contracts. If I can find some details I come post them later tonight.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
If their last gasp defense, "digital rights management", fails, I predict that those music industry executives who survive the shake-out, will try and claim that it was all their idea in the first place.
According to Democratic President Candidate polls, Reverend Sharpton has a lot of credibility in the Democratic Party.
Not according to this poll. Sharpton's at the bottom of the pack as of about a month ago, with support from 2% of Democratic voters.
Anyone have an idea what Richards is worth today? In 1998, he was reportedly worth 105 million pounds.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As a programmer, I sometimes wonder what it would be like to not work under a "work for hire" agreement and get a cut of what my company makes from my creative talents. Sometimes.
On the other hand I get medical insurance, a 401K retirement plan, paid for every hour that I put into the creation of my work, and I'm not asked to cover the "recording cost" of my work.
Maybe, if recording artists are going to be put on "work for hire" contracts, they should demand a similar deal? No, they won't get rich that way, but the prospect of guaranteed income per hours worked sounds a lot better than the current model of the business.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
No wait, I'm serious. This is how it works. You sign up with people with broadband and charge them with selling your music (or whatever), recorded onto CDR (or whatever) and sold to people for a small fee. People can bring their own media (but then if the burn fails for any non-obvious reason of hardware failure then they're out a piece of media) or buy media from the street salesman.
The street salesman needs only a laptop with a CD burner and a sizable disk, or collection of burned CDs to copy, or an inverter to run a PC with a burner and a disk. Just pull some shit down off the 'net. Then the burner charges the customer the flat royalty fee (of whatever) plus whatever the market will bear.
Obviously this works just fine in stationary locations as well.
Now I hate to give any props to any DRM scheme like palladium, but if you used something like that you could actually have a system by which you paid for licenses for each kind of CD. Maybe they would loan you out so many licenses at a time or so many dollars, and increase the number you could have unpaid at once. Using that kind of model you could even sell software this way. So you buy so many cryptographic certs which can be used once (by plugging them into some burning app, or maybe to just decrypt the album/whatever, and it eats the cert) but to do something like this you effectively need a live network connection. So maybe that's overkill. I'm sure someone will do that part someday, though.
In the case of music you can even distribute as MP3 and say that anyone can sell the album as long as they send you a cut. You'll probably get some money, right? If you could somehow establish a reliable network of dealers maybe you could actually make money this way reliably.
Furthermore you can offer incentives to put your ads up. Like, if they display a 22x30" poster of your face and the name of your album (or whatever) they get to sell a few albums without paying a royalty fee. So you gain brand recognition and they gain money... I tell you, it's the american way.
What with broadband internet extending all over the world lately, and CD burners showing up in cracker jack boxes, this seems like an idea whose time has come. A rollerblader with a laptop in a backpack and a sign on his tee shirt could easily roll around making money legally, helping the artist, and helping himself. We could put the (shitty) record stores out of business, while the good ones (IE, big used places like Rasputin's) could stick around as nexuses for all these weird indie backpack recordings. It would be beautiful! And we could make it happen!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Money spent on flops is not my problem. It's the studios' problem. They seem to think it's okay for them to spend unlimited amounts of money promoting bands and pass the costs on to the consumer. I don't know why they do this. It seems obvious to me that if a record label just signed bands that already had a following and spent zero dollars on promotion, they could sell cds for far below market price and make a profit far above other record labels.
In any true free market there would be labels trying this. There aren't any. Why not? Because the labels collude with each other to prevent this from happening.
If I want to buy a basic black shirt I can go into Wal-Mart or Target and buy a no-name black shirt for $7. Or if I want the fancy version I can go to a boutique and spend $80. The point is I have a choice - that the non-brand name and brand name markets are both being catered to by different companies. So I have no need to complain. With cd's, I want to buy a cd and NOT subsidize the marketing spent on it or a dozen flops. I don't have this choice.
There was a time when record companies provided a service you couldn't get anywhere else - getting the name of a band out nationwide and getting people listening to the music. That is no longer the case. I can post my original music on my website, and put it in my shared folder for P2P services and get it spread to a worldwide audience without giving up any of my copyrights on it.
I studied this one at university, they had a course all about it, called economics. I'll see if I can break it down.
If you make more than you spend, it's called a profit. If you spend more than you make, it's called a loss. Was that simple enough?
Just because an album sells 250,000 copies, doesn't mean it is automatically profitable. They may have spent vastly more than they made, in advertising it, to get those 250,000 sales. Micheal Jackson's latest was a great example: He complained not enough had been done to promote it. Sony's counter was that they spent $50million advertising and producing a record that sold 2 million copies - that's $25 costs/record. How much more should they have done?
So, in summary:
Volume != Profit
Disco Duck and Fleetwood Mac
Coming out of my 8-track
Michael Jackson still was black
Those were the days
I hope that Universal and the like will tank just like Enron. Some major changes must occur with enough public outcry that nobody would dare contrive of a business model this virulent. It's about time they pay dearly for their evil ways.
I don't know whether Michael Jackson's skin disease is myth or reality (people seem to claim both), so I won't comment on that.
However, it is a fact that mr. Jackson has received surgery to make him look more "white" as regards his facial features etc., which is why it appears very hypocritical when he claims that fighting for him is fighting the cause of all black people. If he himself believed in that cause, why would he pay to have his appearance altered to look less "black"?
Six sick
Are black people restricted in what forms of cosmetic surgery they receive or they cannot talk about their own racial struggle? I have never heard any bitching about a white person getting "black featured cosmetic surgery" (if there is such a thing). Its amazing all the restrictions African Americans have to face in our country so they "fit" in a smartly categorized group and allowed to speak about it.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
That's a pretty stupid plan. If you invest in a stock, you're not helping the company any. You're merely taking profits away from the person you bought the stock from and giving them to yourself.
if those profits are made using a method that i do not agree with, on a moral basis, then i do not think i would want the stock. if you think this is stupid then so be it.
That's stupid. The best way to get a company to change its ways is to buy stock and then vote for a new board of directors.
i could do that, or i could invest in a company with business practices i agree with from the start. the point is that i could invest based solely on the ability of a company to provide returns. if that were the case, then the media giants that are members of the riaa would be good to invest in. on the other hand, i have other constraints which would prevent me from making those investments. while you, in your eloquent demeanor, consider this to be a stupid reason, i do not.
I never said I think slashdot sucks, and my post was not a troll.
i suppose i was confused by your homepage (slashdotsucks.org) which i found to be misleading if you do not think slashdot sucks. since you appeared to own this domain, i simply inferred that you indeed thought slashdot sucks. perhaps the domains: slashdotdoesnsuck.org or iamundecidedaboutweatherslashdotsucks.org were taken when you decided to grace the internet with your presence. also, i still think you are a troll.
-- john
I have no idea why. I'm not Jewish or anything. It just seems to encapsulate a certain feeling. I didn't consciously start it, it just started to happen. I realize it's weird, but c'est la vie. I blame the media! :)
Normally when the media gets blamed for anything, I shrug it off. But as far as influencing middle class suburban black kids (or even worse, their white neighbors) to act like they're ghetto, I honestly don't see any other source to blame. I grew up in a fairly well off majority black county. In fourth grade all my classmates spoke standard English. By 10th grade only a few percent did. But there's a big difference between talking like a gangsta with your pals and ACTING like a gangsta and buying into that image. Language is very important in bonding groups together and establishing a group identity. When I worked construction in a small southern town I would start work monday morning with a standard accent, and by friday afternoon I'd have a southern accent. I'd never had a southern accent before in my life. It operated on a completely subconscious level. So people may very well not be 'pretending' anything, just beign shaped by their environment.
Or maybe that white yuppie bar just happens to be the hangout of the H-Dawg - "Tha Lowdown Funky-Fresh Gangsta Bad Ass of the Accountz Reeceevable Department of Midstate Office Supply, Tha Righteous Funk Masta, Tha Stone-Cold Muthafuckin' Playa with all tha dope spreadsheets and fly alphabetized invoice files and shit. Y'all be down with the H-Dog, know what I'm sayin'?"
Of course, times change, and so do old justifications. I'll posit that "out-of-print" is as obsolete as 8-track tapes and that the RIAA are sitting there hording the art instead of looking into other revenue streams. This allows them to blame new technologies like P2P and home CD burning for lost sales.
Put simply, there is no reason why anything has to be "out-of-print" now, and certainly no reason why the record labels should get away with sitting on their asses for the last 4-5 years complaining that their business model is now in jeopardy due to the acts of "ingrates, thieves and college students". They could have had a working system online by now whose sole purpose would be to dole out "out-of-print" tunes for $0.99 to $1.99 a pop (allowing you to mix and match them on a custom CD). The overhead for such a system is minimal compared to the outlay of capital they have paid on lawyers over that same time frame.
This outlines the RIAA's motives, quite nicely, of course. Last person on the "proirity-totem-poll" is you and me. A few steps up is "the musician", whomever that may be. Above that? Every other link in the music distribution chain.
I've said this once and I'll say it again: the name of the game here is "evolve or die", and the RIAA has refused to "evolve" so now it's time to do our best to kill them off. Everyone on all sides of the equation (artists, producers, and listeners) need to think about looking into other alternatives for our music enjoyment. It will be hard, but in the long run, it may be better than what we currently have.
...i'd have to say: Yes, people will still steal music, even if the RIAA was totally out of the picture. enough people have zero regard for copyright laws (regardless of who holds that copyright) that unless severe technological measures are forced on all of us, music and video pirating will still exist.
for example: crackers spend a lot of time making sure small software companies can't make money on any general market application (as opposed to big-iron stuff). they apparently think it's some kind of game, where the software company spends hundreds of hours of time and money making something purely for them to crack and redistribute.
without going into wether software should be free (beer) or not, note the parallel: independent content producer sell directly to customers. children (and those with childish minds) feel it's a wonderful thing to pass this content around. content producer suffers from loss of sales. and yes, there is a loss becuase there is a non-zero percentage of people who will get the free version if possible, and not pay. and, the point here isn't even really about sales: it's about the fact that people don't give a shit about IP laws.
(yes, i feel a little sick using the word "content" so often)
all of this complaining about the evil RIAA is just hot moist air.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Mr. Jackson is entitled to all the cosmetic surgery he wants and can afford, just like anyone else. However, if he opts to have surgery done that makes him look like a member of another ethnic group, it will make him come across as a hypocrite if he uses his ethnicity to get sympathy (especially when he's using it for a seemingly completely unrelated cause).
Likewise, a white person would be a hypocrite if he had surgery to make him look, say, black or Asian, and proceeded to call for sympathy because of his white ethnicity. That never happens though, because white people don't face the oppression that black people do, so there's little point in trying to get sympathy for being white. Well, unless you're a racist schmuck or something similar, but that's another matter.
My apologies if my choice of wording is poor, or if I misunderstand the political climate that regards these things; I don't live in the US, so I'm not really sure I know which restrictions you're referring to, or what you mean by "smartly categorized group". Feel free to elaborate if you have the time.
Six sick
Just that people, I love the Slashdot community, but I'm dying to ask how many of you call your Congressmen, and/or write your Senators? (if you're in the US anyway). Take a minute, $1.11 (for postage) and jot down your opinions in a non-rant way. And if you need to who represents you, http://www.congress.gov and http://www.senate.gov remember if you don't tell them your opinion, you don't have one.
P.S. It' "Honorable " for their title.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
check out http://www.kahvi.org ... and most of there newer realeases are in ogg too :)
" How many bands touring today have the musical skills to warrant something half as impressive? IMHO, if they lost money on the deal they have to blame their ego as well as the RIAA. "
Not really. A good part isn't ego, but what fans expect. When people go to a concert they expect show as well as music. Would anyone have been as inclined to go, if "The Wall" concert had consisted of Pink Floyd plopped down on a bar stool in the middle of the stage?
I don't understand
I am a moron.
MPAA?
Zzz. You'll forgive me if I don't have _too_ much pity here.
Joe Recording Artist is the one who takes the pen from the fat, greasy fingers of John Label Rep and signs the damned contract.
If you don't want an 8 album contract, if you don't like the royalty system-- DON'T SIGN THE DAMNED CONTRACT.
Major labels offer crap music anyway. Who cares?
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
hilleh@email.com
"Keeef is a god. Of what, I dread to think, but he IS a god (its the only explanation for him still being alive). "
If being alive makes "Keeef" a god, how do you explain Dick Clark?
The only thing that could make Jackson a hypocrite would be his statements not his appearance. I don't ever recalling him say that, "I'm not black, I don't care about black people because I am rich". Picking on people because of their physical being is not cool. One of the reasons he has had plastic surgery is due to his Vitiligo.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It must have really sucked converting this RIAA killing software from FORTRAN to COBOL to C to C++ to Java, these last 25 years!
Quantum uncertainty.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I found your smokinggun link very informative. Especially the intersection between it and the above discussion of Phish. Most of the riders for the "rock stars" were amusing because of the detail of description for the catering and amenities. I was amazed by the volume of alchohol that U2 requested for each show. The Phish riders, in contrast, deal entirely with making sure the venue is safe and secure for the fans. It contains things like warning the venue that they will have people dancing in the aisles unless they have enough ushers keeping the aisles clear. I'm not a Phish fan, but I applaud their attitude.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I thought the previous comment on applying the RICO statute was interesting (too bad I'm not modding today)...
"the music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.
there's also a negative side." ~ hunter s. thompson
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
The sad truth is that Sting may have written the lyrics and melody, worked it out for months in his little basement studio then had to sell the rights away to get it published. well actualy Sting probably has enough pull to avoid that but most don't.
So if you pay a labled artist for his music, you are very probably paying someone who has no right to sell it, the RIAA or lable may own it lock-stock-and-barrel.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
what's worse: that she might actually *believe* that statement (poor musicians? poor me and my mega monolithic companies!), or that she actually thought that she might get people to view things this way.
... what a ridiculous person.
I'm not sure that it's such a secret either; in the hey days of napster, when everyone (including "non computer types") was downloading, occasionally someone would ask me if I felt bad 'stealing' from bands. Usually (aside from the other arguments, including the fact that for me, napster meant I spent more than ever on CDs checking out the new types of music and bandsI had discovered), I would just say something like "it's really the recording companies that I *might* be stealing from; and they've already ripped off the artists".
I don't think I once had a person say anything other than "yeah, you're right".
I think in this case even middle America knows better. What a ridiculous quote
Wow nice comeback, calling me a troll after I call your bluff for playing your worn out race card. The equivalent of saying "I know you are but what am I"... keep it up rocko.
Like another poster said, if you want to see a real racist you need to look in a mirror.
- Toby
As for the MOB the mob exists to make money any way possible.
The Mob is a more competent version of the RIAA?
May we never see th
Toby, you are defending the denigration of a black man because he has a skin disease that dilutes the pigmentation of his skin. Because of this disease, you are asserting that he does not have the right to speak out against racism that he feels that has been pressed upon him by SONY because he has gone under treatment to re-establish a consistent skin tone. What other diseases remove the right of people to speak out on political issues under your mind set? Are AIDS suffers to be ignored? Breast cancer victims? The diabetic? Vitiligo is a disease that is more obvious to the people around them--than that of the others I have mentioned and much easier for someone to discriminate against.
The Reverend Al Sharpton, a major African American political leader, hosted him to express that view point among his followers. So, no offense to you, I tend to believe the audience that raucously applauded his speech at the National Action Network HQ. There were no dissenting voices in that audience. I know, I watched it, thanks to Public Interest Broadcasting in NYC.
I think you need to rethink your discredit on someone that does not match your preconceived notions of what "black" is. I think publicly mocking a person because of a disease is bad sport--And most likely below your normal standards of personal conduct in public. As for trolling, which is more the troll, defending someone that has a disease or someone bashing them because of it?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
"They face challenges from increasingly vocal performers "
should be
"They face challenges from increasing numbers of vocal performers"
But what about the instrumentalists?
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Sorry, but you must be retarded.
you said:
"Michael Jackson does not bleach his skin in an attempt to change his identity"
Of course he is.
I know several people of color who do have the disease you speak of. Michael doesn't have it.
He has had his face resculpted in an attempt to "look" white.
Why does he hate his skin color and facial features so much?
"Record companies see it as mutiny. Musicians call it an overdue rebellion. Either way, the artists' rights movement has set the stage for combat that could revolutionize the music industry."
Just like napster did?
All we (artists and music lovers) need to do now is find each other, and direct sales will cut out the middlemen.
"Ready to launch ship B, the planet is doomed" said the scientists and engineers to the middlemen...
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Start a fair and equitable record label? One that provides for the artist and fan's, while taking a "fair" share. You would have artists coming from everywhere. The current music industry is flawed because of outdated business practices. Obviously there is huge market for a "modern" business practice where everyone can be happy.
There is a market (artists) and another market (consumers - cheap cds)
Instead of keeping artists out of a contractual arrangement of having to produce 'x' number of cd's, let them choose you as a label, because you are the best.
Sometimes I wish I had some capital... I would absolutely love to do this!
In short, there are costs associated with all kinds of aspects of the project, and there's no way that we will experience $revenue == $profit.
People sign with record labels because they can't afford to do it on their own. We are fortunate enough to be able to afford to do the first album on our own without getting into too much debt, since I have a pretty good nerdly job and my wife also teaches.
The name of the game right now is to:
Middlemen can be really helpful, even downright necessary. They help you get your work out to people that will pay you. The real trick is to maintain control of your art, and these days the costs associated with producing your own album are not as high as the costs of selling out to a big label.
I'm pretty sure that Kristen would be very interested in signing up with an indie label like Ani Difranco's righteous babe records", since it would mean getting a fair deal and getting the music out there easier.
So don't be so closed-minded about who gets the money and how. Just because some businesses are evil, it doesn't follow that all business arrangements are bad. And I certainly hope that you don't boycott or rationalize copyright violations just because you find some minor detail about an artist's distribution choices.
Besides, if you can't afford 75 cents to download a song, you've got worse problems. Maybe you should consider selling your computer to help pay the bills. It's about the same price as a candy bar, for crying out loud!
It seams to me that all we are doing is complaining about Microsoft or looking for pirated copies of Windows when we should be supporting better alternatives. I don't mind the songs on the radio, but I don't want to hear them so many times, or buy an album that I didn't listen to completely. And of course, if I buy a song I want to listen to it where and in any format I choose. Anyone knows other good music services with good independent songs? I think we should demand at least the following:
It's America, if we were to speak the 'proper' language, it would most likely be Cherokee.
How did this get modded up? I want recipies, not mods! Karma doesn't fill my belly! ;)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I don't believe The main battle now, actually, is to prevent the growing stranglehold on the "last mile" by the merged cable/phone companies. That is certainly an important battle, but IMHO the crucial battle will be explaining to the general public and to Congress that the RIAA does not speak for the artists and, in fact, represents those who are swindling the artists.
Thanks.
You'd think I would have figured out by the "La" that it was a Spanish name. "La Hoya" in Spanish would sound pretty weird, more like "La Oya" since they don't really pronounce the H.
I've only heard the name spoken before, I've never seen it written (correctly) until now.
But as they say, you know what assumeing gets you.
:-)
Remedial spelling classes?
+&x