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.
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.
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.
...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.
Imagine if Vincent van Gogh got stuck in a contract where he had to produce 6-8 paintings but all of them had to look and feel just like Starry Night. The guy probably would have become depressed and killed himself.
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
"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!!!!
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 ??
"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
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."
...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.
"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
whatever the record company is making from the sale of a CD, you can be sure that only a very small fraction of its costs are related to producing the CD itself. marketing, office staff, physical distribution, office costs, studio time, lost money on flops, ... the list goes on.
i'm not justifying any particular price for a CD, but demanding that because a CD is cheap to make means that recorded music sold in CD format should be sold for very little is incredibly naive. the price of the product is not just the price of making the final disc.
i'm also curious at the level of complaint about this particular consumer item, when exactly the same concerns and cost/price relationship exists for most other things that we buy, particularly clothes. i don't hear many people (especially on slashdot) talking this way about t-shirts and shoes, which cost very, very little to make but sell for at least as much as a CD.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...
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.
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
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."
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.