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.
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.
"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
The problem with that is, I like CD's, I like records, I already buy from the artists and indie labels.
I'm not going to pay money for the bands MP3's or ogg's.
I want a physical object. I don't want a CD-R, I want an actual physical disc of some sort.
I enjoy the artwork on the CD's/Records.
I don't enjoy the sound quality of MP3.
Above and beyond that, you can't get rich and famous from selling songs off of a website. You need people to promote you, to put you all over the place, etc. Why does this matter? Because many people get into the business to make money! Yes that's right, most of the acts on major labels who make money want to keep it that way.
Yeah, sorry about the rant, I'm just a little tired.
--xPhase
The following sentence is TRUE. The previous sentence is FALSE.
"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.
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
"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
Yeh, brilliant. And then, after your favourite band sells a quarter of a million albums, they find that they're left owning ... well, nothing, because they sold off all the rights to their profits in the IPO. Then we get the same dull article about whiny stars who thought they could have their cake and eat it, except instead of "recording companies" insert "shareholders".
-- the most controversial site on the Web
CD's are dirt cheap to make, and what really shocks me about the price is two things.
The first is that tapes still cost less then CD's, with very small quantities made, and a cost increase to the companies that is almost an order of magnitude.
The second is that cheap DVD's are cheaper the cheap CDs. Why the hell are old movies in the bargin bin 2 for 10 dollors, and semi old ones 10 to dollors each.
I got Blazing Saddles for 8.99. A CD from that era would still cost me 14.00 at the same store.
Why? is the MPAA really that much easier to deal with then the RIAA?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Corporations will try to screw you no matter what happens. Labor unions Exsits to make it so that easier for employees to negotate contracts, improve work situations, and get higher wages.
Unions make sense for the most part autoworks truck drivers school teachers. these are groups that need repesentation and have very little power, (they are easy to replace).
Millionars shouldn't have unions like the MLB players union is stupid.
As for the MOB the mob exsits to make money any way possible. If the mob could make money easly by running down the street naked they would. and they would have their budies do and their employees do it to increase their profit. The mob is a group of buisness men they just take it a bit more searously then the rest of the world.
madness takes its toll please have exact change
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.
And in fact, in some cases the CD with the soundtrack of a movie, costs more than the DVD of the same movie ...
Is that some sort of joke? I was under the impression those were operating expenses that allowed the record company to retain 86.5% of gross sales revenue (10% 'breakage' plus 85% of 90% gross). To claim that the artist has to pay those 'expenses', while giving them an extremely small percentage of the revenue is insane. And, quite frankly, criminal.
Maybe this will bring back artists in the old way. You know, you play at the local bars, then at local events, etc. And with each play you get bigger and more popular. All the while getting a following.
What is bad with girl bands, boy bands, Brittany type artists is that the initial step is missing. They clump together a bunch of no talents and then throw them on the stage to perform like circus acts. And they do this with new acts every year. This way the no-talents will not get too pushy with the labels. And the labels can keep the profits up because they can give a "once in a lifetime" offer for stardom!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Yeah. Now the CDs are already broken before shipping.
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.
Ever read a recording contract? Let's put it this way, I had the opportunity to read hundreds, maybe thousands, and many (especially new artist contracts) are huge, incomprehensible documents that often are skewed in the direction of the label. No argument there: this is business. Get a lawyer.
But if you are a new band, with (what until lately has been) the ultimate carrot of commerical success dangled in front of you, it's difficult to not rationalize "I can make this work, after all, I just wanna get my soul, my music to my fans."
It's not till later, when the buzz fades, wisdom comes knocking and you realize that even if your fans love you, and you are selling lotsa records, that you are making no money, and subsidizing 85 (not an exaggeration) same-label bands that are not as fortunate/talented as you. It's only then that you think "hm. this might be as fair as I'd like."
True, you should have demanded better terms. But often, if a young band has the choice of signing an extremely rare recording contract (with attached advance check) or continuing to live on Friskies and ramen casserole in their parents' garage, the implications of mechanical royalty disbursment and ownership of masters in 20 years seem unimportant.
Let's try an analogy. You are on a NY street and see a guy selling brand new, shrink wrapped DV camcorders out of his trunk. People are buying six at a time. You say "hell, I'm down with this" and plunk down $75 for a cool new Bluetooth minicam.
You open the box at home and find a house brick and nothing else. You've been scammed. Ok, so you should have checked the contents right there.
But who committed the crime?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
Unfortunately, he keeps reinforcing a victim mindset.
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?
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."
Download the song, then buy one of his books, to offset the loss. (And you needn't buy from Amazon; they are just a handy reference)
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
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.
Odds are good that you'll sign it and hope you end up in the black.
Fact is, there's nothing about the music industry that's fair, from the recording companies, to the concert promotoers, to ticket sales. It's legalized organized crime.