BMI Reports All-Time Profit High Despite Piracy

applemasker writes "Arstechnica is running a story chock full of links to other interesting things about BMI's amazing record profit and how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use." Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

Comments

What BMI will say

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it weren't for piracy, we would've made even more money."

Re:What BMI will say

[erick99]

This is a typical and specious argument that can't be argued against without looking and sounding shrill. It is an argument of convenience at best. I would counter with the fact that BMI's rate of growth has been steady going back nearly a decade and growth that smooth was probably not affected (much) by piracy or there should have been a bump in there somewhere.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:What BMI will say

[nkh]

the downloader is able to hear a work they would have otherwise paid for.

I have a little problem with music these days: why would I buy a record that I can't listen to because it is copy-protected?

I understand that Kazaa punks pirate music, but each day, I hear more and more stories of people who bought CDs and return them for a refund because it's not working... Piracy was the problem, now it's the only solution to hear the music you bought.

Re:What BMI will say

[Sj0]

Where did he say he condoned it?

All he was saying is that artists made most of their money elsewhere. Considering that it's quite well documented that the recording industry rips off it's artists big time(and the parent was talking about just that, in fact), I wouldn't be suprised.

A lot of people pay for their music for the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that the artists are being paid, while still knocking the music industry for their profit hoarding, screwing both the artists and the customers(see: price fixing, cartel behaviour), while pretending to be acting in the best interests of both. For that reason, I refuse to listen to RIAA music if I can help it, and flat out won't download OR buy their music, no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty of bands on the internet who actually want their music heard, and a lot of them are great at what they do. If for that reason alone, I prefer legal and obscure to illegal and mainstream any day. I'll even pay for it whenever I have a few bucks to spare, content in knowing that instead of getting a few pennies for their work, they'll get a few dollars.

Now that's what I call "voting with your wallet".

Re:What BMI will say

[IronMagnus]

Case in point, my brother bought a CD, it wouldn't play in his car CD player. He pop'd it on his linux box and was able to make a copy despite the copy protection. Heres the irony. If the CD wasn't copy protected, we would have had no reason to make a copy of it... fortunately the protection was useless and easily circumvented for fair use.

Re:What BMI will say

[Simonetta]

Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy. (original post)

No, we should start purchasing our own copy from our friends instead of the RIAA. That way our friends will remain our friends and we won't be giving our money to monopoly cartels who will be using it to extort us and to put us and our friends in prison for the crime of listening to music.

There does come a point in every middle-class person's life where they have to put aside the illusion that they are Star Fleet officers for a minute and start thinking and acting like Ferengee in order to ensure the survival of themselves, their friends, their dreams, and their culture.

Re:What BMI will say

[Sancho]

Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc. The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content. Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there. Some say it's a bad thing, some say it's a good thing, but in a free society that should be all about choice, it's pretty definitive of our ideals. Lots to choose from.

Now lots of people, including myself, believe that copyright has gotten out of hand. The extensions, for example, are completely unnecessary to the original goal. I don't think anyone here believes that it will take 70+ years for an author these days to recoup their investment plus make a profit on their book. In fact, since copyright depends upon the life of the author, we're truly just allowing for the estate of the author to live off of their work, something that doesn't jive (in my opinion) with the purpose of copyright.

But what it all comes down to is that it doesn't matter. We live in a society where copyright is the law. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but it is against the law. A person doesn't deserve to download to music just because they'd never buy it anyway, so the store+record company+artist isn't going to lose anything. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But it doesn't mean it's acceptable to break it and justify it with crap like that.

Re:What BMI will say

[bechthros]

"Heck, videos contain enough commericals now that I wouldn't be surprised if MTV actually started showing videos again."

dude, videos *are* commercials. They advertise the band's song/recording/performance, depending on the video. They're four-minute long chunks of TV that MTV is *paid*, usually by the bands themselves, to put on. The bands also pay for the production of the video as well. And you'll notice that they tend to come out right before a album relase or tour - they're just commercials to sell a product. That was the whole beauty of MTV when it started - it was basically a channel of 24-hour commercials that people would beg to watch. Same goes these days for M2 and fuse.

Somewhere along the line, MTV decided to introduce original programming, but keep it as low-budget as possible, hence reality television - no stars, no writers, no directors, no sets. Just producers, assistants, and a dozen or so poor saps ready to humiliate themselves on network television for a chance at a measly half a mil... after signing all the insurance waivers, of course. The budget benefits of reality programming are the reason it'll be around for a long time.

Re:What BMI will say

[Master of Transhuman]

"If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works"

Bullshit.

I'll say it again.

Bullshit.

This is totally untrue for any number of social and economic reasons.

The only thing that would happen if IP laws went away is that business models would change. People would make their money in a different manner.

Period.

There is absolutely NO economic evidence that IP laws have ANY positive effect on the production of art or inventions.

From the beginning, it has merely been some people's THEORY that this is true - most of these people in government or business with other agendas than the free dissemination of ideas.

Re:What BMI will say

[Master of Transhuman]

And you know WHY Phillips doesn't get sued by the RIAA for making consumer machines with CD copiers built in?

Because they are a $60 billion company (well, the parent is - the electronics division is $32 billion.)

The entire US record industry is less than $15 billion. The GLOBAL music industry is worth around $32 billion.

In other words, Phillips could theoretically buy the entire industry and put them all out of business.

So they do want they want and the RIAA can kiss their ass.

Sony is in a more difficult position since they sell copiers AND music content. But I suspect they make more from their hardware sales than their content sales.

Re:What BMI will say

[syberanarchy]

People like you are the reason that the RIAA's line of "copyright ends when we say so" stays as the official mantra of the public. I mean, did you really just compare the ownership of an idea to deflowering someone's bride? And I thought the Hitler/Bush comparisons were out there.

If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.

Good point, except that the public domain IS becoming void of artistic works, and will continue to do so for the next 75+ years thanks to the work of the late Sonny Bono and other "public servants."

Probably longer than that, actually - I can see it now: the MICKEY II AP act - Money In Copyright Key II American Prosperity act - will ensure that copyrights last for up to 90 years after the corporation that bought them for pennies of the dollar goes bankrupt.

They (the corporations) are not holding up to their end of the bargain (limited copyright). So why should I hold up to my end by buying their music instead of taking what should rightfully be in the public commons? (I don't listen to music from the current times, thanks.) Because the law says so? You're going to have to give this free thinker a better reason than that, Jack.

The musicians are in the middle of the battle, and those who keep signing with RIAA labels have shown where their allegiances lie. Thus, they'll get no pity from me.

Re:What BMI will say

[ZorinLynx]

I'm sure that if copyright didn't exist, and only people who really loved to write, compose music, etc. did so, because there was less economic gain, then the quantity would decrease, but the QUALITY would increase vastly.

I don't think I'd mind living in a world where this is the case.

-Z

Re:What BMI will say

[Free_Meson]

This is totally untrue for any number of social and economic reasons.

The only thing that would happen if IP laws went away is that business models would change. People would make their money in a different manner.

Period.

There is absolutely NO economic evidence that IP laws have ANY positive effect on the production of art or inventions.

From the beginning, it has merely been some people's THEORY that this is true - most of these people in government or business with other agendas than the free dissemination of ideas.

Well, people who really love to write, compose music, etc AND are already insanely wealthy -- wealthy enough to write for the benefit of others for free while at the same time supporting their families without any additional income. So, how many people do you think fall into that category? We could just go down the list of great american authors and see how many we would have had if there was no financial incentive to produce books... can you name one? I mean I know for a fact that Hawthorne, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Salinger would not have written as prolifically if at all if there had been no prospect for financial incentive. The prospect of future returns paying either for previously incurred expenses or to sustain their overly extravagant lifestyle was a major part of the reason they chose to write.

More importantly, though, I think you completely misunderstand the nature of our economic system. Right now, for example, lawyers are rewarded handsomely when they successfully represent their clients. That makes law a profitable field, and because people like to have money it makes law a competitive field. More people try to become lawyers and, as a result, we have much better lawyers now, on average, than we did say 50 years ago. (read some case law and it will be quite obvious to you that the quality of representation has improved). Awarding copyright to artists does the same thing -- it makes the creation of art a competitive field. I don't want to read a book some idiot with family money put together, published, and distributed because I have very little interest in reading anything that a substantial portion of the population isn't willing to pay to read. (Substantial portion here doesn't imply mainstream, simply large enough to support a boutique publisher's overhead).

But this brings about another problem... if there is to be no copyright then who will pay to publish and distribute the books? Who will pay for the endless rounds of editing that go into every book you buy? Maybe you distribute electronically, though that has been wildly unsuccessful so far because people (and that is who we care about here, remember) don't like to read off of computer screens. They do that enough at work, and so maybe they print it out themselves for 4 cents a page... and so this 1200 page book in my hand would cost me $48 to print up. That is cheaper than the $60 that I paid for it, but that does not include the editing or the compensation for the writer...

For some reason, though, you were stupid enough to repeatedly make the point that copyright is without merit, and that it serves no constructive purpose in our society. How exactly would this society-without-copyright exist in your fairytale world? How would the creators of intellectual property profit from their massive investments of time, energy, and money? Maybe Steinbeck would write and publish his own books, you know, in that free time between 18 hour shifts as a bricklayer. Maybe Hemingway would have been able to write "The Sun Also Rises" imbetween digging ditches. I doubt it, though.

What irks me the most, though, is that a small-minded cretin like you infers from the fact that you can see no usefulness to one of the most important development in property rights in the last 3000 years that no one else has thought about the issue. You completely ignore the very real fac

Re:What BMI will say

[Red Alastor]

So the money pie would be smaller but shared between less people who produce more quality. Indeed, it would not be so bad.

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

This comment by Sancho is just begging for a reply, so here goes:

Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc.

And no books existed before copyright? You are kidding, right? The Statute of Anne was passed in 1710. China managed to get along without copyright for the first 700 or so years of movable type printing (starting in about 1041) and had been producing woodblock prints, in the absence of copyright, since at least the 6th century. Are you trying to tell me there were no books before the Statute of Anne was passed?

I have been meaning to say this for a long time: People write books for other reasons than profit. The claim might even be made that works for hire are not art at all since profit is not a motivation for true art. Whether or not that is true, people write books for lots of reasons. Some people, on occasion (like thousands of Slashdotters, for instance) might actually have something to say to the world.

The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content.

Once again, you are kidding, right? If the RIAA was paying artists well, they would not be working at your local cafe. Starbucks employs more rockstars than the affiliates of the RIAA. Without copyright, they would be doing the same jobs. We just would not have to pay for Britany Spears' breast enlargements. Let's face it, utopia is life without Eminem.

Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there.

This is totally incorrect (see preceding response). It is entirely likely that there would be more variety in sources of information. Imagine if there were five versions of Star Wars, and potential audience members could choose the version of the story that best suited their tastes. George Lucas made a kids version of Star Wars, which in many people's opinion (11,124 out of 36,362 to be exact) ruined the story. Maybe somebody else could make an adult version with darker characters and no Jar Jar Binks. Would that be variety?

Some say it's a bad thing, some say it's a good thing, but in a free society that should be all about choice, it's pretty definitive of our ideals. Lots to choose from.

The question is: Whose choice are we talking about here? The vendor's choice or the buyer's choice? It appears these days that the record industry wants to decide beforehand what the buyers should buy and feed it to them. This is totally backwards. In a free market, the vendor is subject to the whim of the buyer. The vendor is basically a beggar asking for the privilege of exchanging something for the buyer's valuable money. The buyer chooses whether or not to purchase goods or services, not the vendor. This is unless of course you advocate laws that force purchases on ordinary people to support the economy. Do you?

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

The thing is, quietly breaking laws for personal gain is not civil disobedience. It's just lawbreaking.

That is assuming that sharing files, even copyrighted music files, is breaking the law. Unfortunately for your argument, not all of Us The People accept the *AA's version of that argument.

Most of the sharing done on P2P networks would fall under unregulated uses (NOT even fair use) in the real world. If I voluntarily gave a CD I owned to one of my friends, it would be perfectly legal. If I played it for my friend over the telephone (transmitted it), that would be legal, too. If I copied it once, that would be fair use. So, many of the elements involved in such sharing are perfectly legal.

The *AAs have claimed that many uses that are legal are not. They claim that the music or movies or whatever is their property. This is plainly not true. If someone steals a CD from a store, they have stolen property. If someone copies the music onto their harddrive, they have stolen nothing and created a legal backup. The *AAs do not own information... period.

Finally, you should think about the scope of Fair Use. Fair Use was not defined as a term in Title 17 until 1976 with the Copyright Act of that year. However, the practice of defining Fair Use by the courts has existed almost as long as copyright has existed in US law. How can this be?

Well, basically, Fair Use is what is called common law which is based on commonly accepted practices. If most people behave in such a way, the law follows the commonly accepted practice unless specifically legislated against. Fair Use was a reaction of the courts to protect people from doing obviously reasonable things with copyrighted material.

Now it is common practice to download songs. This practice has not hurt the *AAs. They have had record profits in a dismal economy. Of course they see the possibility that they could get more profits if there was some way to make people pay for all this downloading. This is called greed. So, they accuse everybody and their grandmother (literally) of "stealing" that which they do not own, and cry bloody murder about file sharing.

The truth is, the *AAs are just lying. I do not accept their version of the law. And before you choose to accept, you should consider that online all speech is governed by copyright if such arguments are accepted. Maybe you should pay a fee every time you quote someone. Imagine how much it would cost to post on Slashdot.

Just because the press says something is illegal does not make it so.

Something we don't know

[ThisNukes4u]

Maybe the BMI could tell us something we couldn't figure out for ourselves. We know the music artists aren't starving, its not too hard to figure out when they are driving around H2's and flashing their bling-bling.

Re:Something we don't know

[shark72]

"Maybe the BMI could tell us something we couldn't figure out for ourselves. We know the music artists aren't starving, its not too hard to figure out when they are driving around H2's and flashing their bling-bling."

I think you're confusing the performers -- the pretty people whose photos are on the cover of the CD -- with the songwriters and composers who work behind the scenes creating the music that's recorded by the music stars. Sometimes they're the same person (in the case of a singer/songwriter) but often they're not.

A career as a composer or songwriter is often shitty, backbreaking work for little or no recognition. Very few Hummer H2s for the majority of those who've made this their chosen profession.

And it's BMI who looks out for these people.

Am I the only person here

[jb.hl.com]

Who still buys RIAA artist CDs?

Recently I've bought about 4 CDs, totalling about 75 dollars of music (50 gbp). Why? Because I like the artist, I want the included artwork and gimmicks and because it is only fair that the artist, the record company and the music store and anyone else involved in the production of the record get paid. If you like an artist, I mean REALLY like an artist, you will be happy to pay for their music. Can't call yourself a fan of some music if you're not willing to pay for it,

YMMV.

This is beyond boring...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough damned RIAA-related posts already.

We know they are wrong, we know that some music must be sold in order for musicians to survive, and we know that sharing of music will never end.

The editors of Slashdot need to exercise some restraint. In any case, the signal : noise ratio on this site has become steadily worse in the past year.

Wake up and provide some more interesting material, kiddies.

Re:Still

[jratcliffe]

"I'll stop doing that when I feel the price for an album has settled to a more reasonable price point."

I think that it's reasonable that you rent me your car for nothing but the cost of gas and maintenance. I'll be buy sometime tonight to pick it up. Sound fair?

Artists? Starving?

[blair1q]

When was the last time Van Gogh collected a royalty check?

Corporate ownership of music should be outlawed.

It's unnecessary.

"Barrowing" music?

[CaptainTux]

but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call outright stealing "borrowing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

1: When one borrows something it usually deprives the lender of the objects use until the borrowed item is returned. This is true of borrowing a CD. Your friend no longer has use of that CD until you return it.

2: When something is borrowed, it is usually returned or expected to be returned.

"Borrowing" music from a friend in the form of a copied CD or MP3 or downloading music from strangers (and no, they are NOT your "friends") on the internet does not meet the definitions of borrowing.

I believe music SHOULD be able to be freely copied, shared, etc across the net. I think it's a viable revenue stream for the artists and labels and that most people will go and buy the CD eventually if they really like it. But let's not muddy the waters just to appease our own guilty minds: it isn't borrowing and it's not sharing music between friends because you consider the entire world your friend. It's stealing. Let's at least be honest.

Re:"Barrowing" music?

[HeghmoH]

It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call outright stealing "borrowing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call copyright infringement "outright stealing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

1: When one steals something, it usually deprives the original owner of the objects. This is true of stealing a CD from a music store. The store no longer has that CD to sell to its customers.

2: When something is copied against the will of the copyright owner, the copyright owner loses nothing but an abstract potential.

"Stealing" music from a friend in the form of a copied CD or MP3 or downloading music from strangers on the internet does not meet the definitions of stealing.

I believe people SHOULD respect copyright, because it causes people to make valuable contributions to society. But let's not muddy the waters to make a point against those who may disagree; it isn't stealing just because you disagree. It's copyright infringement. Let's at least be honest.

Re:Still

[6169]

I disagree with your analogy, because you are implying that by paying less than I currently am for an album, I'm getting something for free, and somebody else is getting shafted. I don't think that's true. It shouldn't cost 90% of my $17 to edit the tracks, produce the album art, make the product, and advertise it. That's an incredible profit margin.

That system was created before the technology to do all of that cheaply became commonplace. Excellent software exists to record, edit, and mix tracks, and the hardware needed to do so well doesn't cost that much more than a high-end audio card. There are plenty of very talented artists and graphics designers who would jump at the chance to do cover art. The cost of the physical media and case is marginal. The last hurdle is advertising and promiting the album, but the internet provides an incredible medium for this. All we need is apropriate demand, which the record companies are doing their best to stifle.

That is why I don't feel that paying a little less for a CD (and still giving the artists more than they get now) is a bad thing.

when did we not borrow copies?

[fermion]

Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

When did we not borrow copies? Before P2P we made tapes. I suppose before recorded records we just stole the music and lyrics and sang it ourselves. To this day we burn CDs.

I don't think the issue is borrowing or copying or stealing. I think the issue is how much will it cost to do business in prerecorded media, and who will be willing to enter that business with those costs. Clearly small labels have always had a tough time. The big guys are and have been making money hand over fist for a very long time, at least the past 20 years.

Leakage or piracy or whatever is part of the cost. So is the drugs, prostitution, and violence. Some people are never going to buy a recording. Some always will. The goal should be to encourage the middle to buy without pissing them off and pushing them to the end that never buys. This is a worthwhile goal. P2P and ITMS is part of that goal. I know people that are buying music again because of these services.

Re:I'm hungry

[ToasterTester]

Recording companies and contracts are more like insurance companies. They are taking the risks on the artist. They pay for the recording, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. IF the artist is a flop the recording company has lost the money not the artist. SO the recording companies pray out of all the groups they sign a one or two will make it big. That will help the recording company recoop losses from the failed artist. So while they do make lots of money off off a couple artist they are loseing on others.

Yes, the artist if they sell have to pay back recording costs before they make money themselve and some only break even. That is why songwriter royalities are so important to artists. The artists may not make money off records themselve, but make money from their song writing.

When a record is played on the radio, or a CD sold part of the money goes to the record company in the past called mechanical royalites. Then another part of the money go to song writer royalities. Plus we aren't talking about much money a few cents per play. That what many artist have to pay the bills with.

>>> but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends Borrowing from friends sound innocent, trouble is it's long term borrowing, and not alway friends, but strangers on the internet. Theft is theif. In the past the recordind companies accepted so much of this "borrowing" between friends. But when people started sharing with anyone and everyone you blew it for everyone. So don't blame the record companies and artist who want to get paid. You abused the system and now EVERYONE is paying for your greed.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[antiMStroll]

From BMI' site:

" BMI also licenses non-broadcast general music users, such as nightclubs, discos, hotels, bars, restaurants and other venues. While it is virtually impossible to log and make a separate distribution for such performances, they are accounted for by BMI's basic premise that the material used in such venues reflects the songs currently being performed on commercial broadcasting stations. Therefore, royalties collected from general music users are distributed on the basis of performances on commercial radio and television stations."

They're the same clowns strong arming taxi companies, restaurants, dentists - any commercial venue with a radio on. I'm not sure I'll group them with the 'good guys'.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[mog007]

They are non-profit

So is the RIAA... just because an organization is non-profit offically doesn't mean they're not a greedy organization.

Re:Inflation

[shark72]

You're absolutely correct -- in fact, the price of music has not kept up with inflation. That record on sale for $9.99 in 1984 would cost $17.60 in today's dollars; meanwhile (believe it or not) the average price of a new CD is now down to about $13.50.

Re:Still

[Simonetta]

It shouldn't cost 90% of my $17 to edit the tracks, produce the album art, make the product, and advertise it.

I certainly doesn't cost that much. Half or so of the $17 goes to the retailer. A few dollars of the remaining $10 goes to the wholesale distributor. A dollar or so remaining goes to the 'artist' in theory, but in reality record contracts are written so that almost all of the money that would go to the 'artist' goes to record company support companies or individuals. These are the CD pressers, the insert printers, the recording studios, and the record producers. All the money for these people comes out of the 'artist's' royalities.
As a consequence, these support people have no reason not to charge insane amounts of money for their 'necessary services'. Books old and new on the recording industry from a band's perspective document vast amounts of the 'artist's' advance money be wasted by these people. Both the books "Star Maker Machinery" and the recent "So You Want To Be A Rock'n'Roll Star" describe how a record producer forced on the group by the record company at many hundreds of dollars per hour would spend days adjusting the snaps on a snare drum to get the 'perfect' sound - burning up thousands of dollars of the band's studio budget.
These are the people who are responsible for the absurd cost of RIAA product, not the MP3 downloaders.
In fact, by altering the financial framework of the music industry, the P2P downloaders are actually revitalizing the music industry by forcing them to cut out all fat and waste that that has built up in the product generation process since the beginning of the pop music album era in the 1960s.

Back to Economic Basics

[gyges]

Hmmmm .... so they saw an increase in revenues. Last time I checked that is not the same as profit, despite what the post says. BMI built its revenu by adding artists to its catalog, not through retail sales or any direct consumer interaction. If anything this gives record companies more to cry about since they are allegedly being squeezed harder at both ends (BMI on one side, pirates on the other).

Patronage

[Anonymous Coward]

> When was the last time Van Gogh collected a royalty check?

Vincent van Gogh was largely supported financially by his brother Theo (http://www.vangoghgallery.com/misc/bio.htm), and wasn't much of a success while alive.

In fact, many of the great artists were either unable to support themselves with their art or were supported by - and hence beholden to - rich patrons. The modern equivalent of a rich patron is a corporate contract, such as promoting Pepsi or writing ad jingles.

Do you really want art to be supported by ad jingles and soft drink promotions? By harkening back to the "good old days" of patronage, that _is_ what you're suggesting. I hope you don't think we'd get any less Britney or N'Sync that way.

What BMI will say-Right to entertainment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe better questions are...does the public have a right to entertainment? If so, is it a natural right, or an artificial one?