BMI Reports All-Time Profit High Despite Piracy

What BMI will say by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:What BMI will say by erick99 · 2004-09-04 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:What BMI will say by BoldAC · 2004-09-04 04:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Artists make most of their money from other sources now. Much like atheletes they make money from sponsorships...

What video these days doesn't push a product or three? Heck, videos contain enough commericals now that I wouldn't be surprised if MTV actually started showing videos again.

Smaller artists, like many of my friends, make most of their money from live performances... despite being signed to "major labels."

Sadly, these major labels often sign many artists to keep them from signing with other groups. Paying them a small fee and then "vaporwaring" their music keeps them out of the competition.

The music companies are bastards, bastards them all.
Re:What BMI will say by nkh · 2004-09-04 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by erick99 · 2004-09-04 04:55 · Score: 5, Informative

This is not new, not that it changes the argument but I was taping songs off the radio in the 60's when I was 10 years old. I would agree that it's easier now and the quality is better but copying songs is an "old" practice and I just don't know that it has the effect that the labels believe. When I got older and got a job, I began paying for my music as I believe most folks do.
Cheers,
Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:What BMI will say by shark72 · 2004-09-04 05:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Why would they say that? BMI collects royalties on performance rights, not CD sales. CD sales have nothing to do with their revenue stream.

Remember, BMI is a non-profit artists' rights agency, collecting royalties for composers and songwriters for performances -- not sales -- of music which was written or composed by their members.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:What BMI will say by Sj0 · 2004-09-04 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

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".

--
It's been a long time.
Re:What BMI will say by tigeba · 2004-09-04 05:24 · Score: 5, Informative

BMI is a non-profit organization that collects royalties for performances on behalf of artists. ASCAP is a similar organization. The money is obtained from entities like radio stations and then is distributed to artists based on statistical sampling of compiled performance data. Artists (songwriters, composers, publishers) select an organization (BMI, ASCAP) and register their works with them, and in return for a membership fee, the organization sends them a check if their performances show up on the radar.
Re:What BMI will say by Commander+Trollco · 2004-09-04 05:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Whether they are affected or not would be really beside the point, if we were to look at the problem from its root.

The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.
In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

--
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
Re:What BMI will say by IronMagnus · 2004-09-04 05:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Simonetta · 2004-09-04 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Sancho · 2004-09-04 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by pyros · 2004-09-04 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.

Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed. If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works. The problem is that the original terms of copyright have been extended far beyond the point of any usefulness. When you say "if the public decides" you are ignoring the fundamental protection from the tyranny of the majority that the constitution affords us all. Would you sing the sae tune if the public decides they all have the right of prima nupta and line up to have sex with your wife on your wedding night to bless the union? You won't have been robbed of any property or income.
Re:What BMI will say by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was taping songs off the radio in the 60's

Me too, but in the 70/80's. There was even a time when some "fm rock stations" played whole album sides (records were double-sided, kids) uninterrupted. I spent most of my money on records in those days and bought over a thousand. Hmmm, isn't that a coincidence?
Re:What BMI will say by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 06:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

I am sorry, but that is utter crap. The average citizen or even groups of millions of citizens of low income have zero or near zero hopes of changing the law in the US. You can carry on with your righteous theories all day long, but you're absolutely wrong. It is the duty of citizens who feel that laws are unjust to break them. It is an honor to break laws that are created by an unjust legal system.
Re:What BMI will say by bechthros · 2004-09-04 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:What BMI will say by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-09-04 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:What BMI will say by Igmuth · 2004-09-04 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Name a reason why people would keep making books, music, movies, etc, if people could freely, and legally copy them, and make derivatives and knock offs? Yes, I realize there are some people who do things purely for the love of the craft, but I would imagine many of them, when it came down to it, would have to find other things to do, instead of doing what they love.
Re:What BMI will say by syberanarchy · 2004-09-04 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by ZorinLynx · 2004-09-04 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-09-04 08:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

WRONG! You shouldn't start your post with a logical fallacy. Creative works were produced long before the notion of copyright ever existed therefore you can never assert that copyrights were the cause without extra justification.

Really, you should build up to the logical fallacy that way it is more believable.

This of course is why we will probably never win in this battle. Nobody who cares enough about truth is willing to blatantly lie to take down blatant liars.
Re:What BMI will say by mpe · 2004-09-04 09:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Books (and libraries) predate the concept of copyright by a very long time.

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

Actually copyright was invented to give the state control over use of the printing press. Resulting in the business model of the third party publisher. Media invented afterwards copied the same business model.

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.

Movies and televison postdate the invention of copyright, so it's anyone's guess how they might work without it. Whereas books predate the concept by thousands of years.
It's very much evident that authors will write books without copyright even existing. It's also far from clear that the existance of copyright does much to encourage authorship anyway.
Re:What BMI will say by Free_Meson · 2004-09-04 09:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Red+Alastor · 2004-09-04 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
Re:What BMI will say by LuYu · 2004-09-04 20:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Re:What BMI will say by LuYu · 2004-09-04 22:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
All data is speech. All speech is Free.

Something we don't know by ThisNukes4u · 2004-09-04 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
thisnukes4u.net

Re:Something we don't know by shark72 · 2004-09-04 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

"Effect" bottom line? by Colonel+Cholling · 2004-09-04 04:27 · Score: 2, Informative

From the article:
Everyone knows that piracy can effect an artist's bottom line

Perhaps they mean affect. Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.

--

I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.

Reminds me of South Park by imehler · 2004-09-04 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Those Bastards! They did have enough for their 17th corvettes, solid gold diamond encrusted swimming pools and harem full of supermodels after all - that FBI agent LIED to us!

Still by 6169 · 2004-09-04 04:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

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

Re:Still by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 04:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Sure, c'mon over. And bring your girlfriend as security deposit like last time.
Re:Still by 6169 · 2004-09-04 04:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Still by Simonetta · 2004-09-04 06:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

I sense the potential for confusion by tepples · 2004-09-04 04:30 · Score: 5, Informative

BMI != BMG

BMG is a record label.

BMI is a performance rights organization representing songwriters and their publishers. It handles royalties for radio play of over 4 million copyrighted songs. The other major performance rights organizations are ASCAP and SESAC.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion by starrsoft · 2004-09-04 04:48 · Score: 4, Informative

I think this article was presented a bit out of context. (i.e. "how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use.") This is after all an organization that "handles royalties for radio play". This does nothing to counteract the argument that piracy is hurting music sales. This is the profits of playing music on the radio, which would logically be greater, because of file sharing not less.
I think the problem the RIAA has with file sharing is that is shifts the profits an artist receives to being funneled through (with usual middleman skim-off) BMI type companies instead of BMG (RIAA) type companies. This article isn't and shouldn't be about RIAA type sales not decreasing; it is about the revenue, that music lovers direct to artists, shifting to other industries as a result of technological evolution.

--
Read my blog: HansMast.com
Re:I sense the potential for confusion by shark72 · 2004-09-04 05:36 · Score: 3, Informative

"paying more than 85% of revenue collected to copyright owners." Copyright owners = the record company's"

I'm not sure how you made that connection. BMI is a performers' rights organization. They represent (and help collect money for) songwriters and composers, not record companies. Songwriters and composers, on the whole, make absolutely terrible money, and it's organizations like BMI that look out for them.

It's covered here.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:I sense the potential for confusion by shark72 · 2004-09-04 19:44 · Score: 2, Informative

"If you look at the typical contract, you will see that the "copyright holder" *is* the record company."

I think I see where you and the other fellow are confused. There are multiple copyrights. Copyrights on the words and music remain with the songwriter and composers and/or their publishing companies -- the folks represented by BMI, the company we're discussing. These are the folks that BMI means when they refer to "copyright holders."

The copyright on the recording often belongs with some combination of the record company, the engineer, and/or the producer. The record company typically has exclusive rights to distribute the recordings (this is how they recoup the considerable expense associated with producing and distributing the CD), which are licensed to the record company by the copyright holders.

Just to be clear, BMI represents -- and pays -- composers and songwriters... not record companies. They're different revenue streams. Record companies get their money by selling CDs. BMI collects money through public performances.

I hope this helps clear it up.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

-1, obvious by rootofevil · 2004-09-04 04:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

seriously, when are they going to realize that P2P isnt hurting anything.

this will likely be spun as "look how well our lawsuits are working, people are actually buying music again"

--
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-09-04 04:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Am I the only person here by jb.hl.com · 2004-09-04 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --

Re:Am I the only person here by Shadow99_1 · 2004-09-04 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Um I buy music, but not from any major label... I go out of my way to support bands I like who aren't signed to major labels and I support small 'indy' labels.

Why? Because I like their music and I can accept it as good music. They write their own stuff. They stick to their artistic ideals. And they will keep doing it as long as they find it interesting to do.

Why don't I support bands with major label deals? Because most don't have much real talent. Most don't write their own songs. Most submit to the whims of the labels marketing department rather than sticking to their artistic gifts. And finally most are at the utter whim of the labels themselves. One bad record and they may never be heard from again.

I wish the band Ra (try to search for them, not all that easy) would drop their contract with their label, though they will loose all rights to their work (it's owned by the label as pretty much every artists is). They have talent, but got no exposure and seem to have dropped compltely off the map... That happens all to often with bands with real talent, but aren't the next boy band or talentless bimbo girl that the music label can push around...

--
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise

Slight correction... by ca1v1n · 2004-09-04 04:33 · Score: 2, Funny

No, the artists are still starving. BMI is doing well though.

--
WARNING: there is a trojan on your

This is beyond boring... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 04:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Songwriters make more than artists by tepples · 2004-09-04 04:34 · Score: 2

Perhaps the recording artists are struggling to recoup, but the songwriters aren't. This shows that the way to make money in the record business is to write songs for other artists to cover, as it's the songwriter who gets paid when a song is played on the radio. However, songwriters run the risk of copyright infringement.

BMI is not the RIAA by common+middle+name · 2004-09-04 04:38 · Score: 3, Informative

As far as I know BMI handles royalties for broadcast rights and things like "covers" and songwriting credits. It has nothing to do with sales of pre-recorded music which is what the RIAA claims is hurt by piracy. When you buy a cd from a major label band BMI doesn't see any money. They only benefit from the radio station you listen too playing a BMI artist's songs or the local kareoki bar patrons singing along to a recording. This has nothing to do with pre-recorded music or file sharing. Nothing to see here...move along.

Re:BMI is not the RIAA by direktor · 2004-09-04 04:54 · Score: 2, Informative

The parent article is right. BMI has nothing to do with album sales. AND, contrary to the article I'm replying to, BMI does not have the leverage to promote bands. BMI is an administration company...they're like a payroll service for songwriters. Ars kinda screwed up with this one, hinging their whole article on a piece of info that's not really pertinent.
Re:BMI is not the RIAA by shark72 · 2004-09-04 05:01 · Score: 2, Informative

"Companies such as BMI obviously have the leverage to promote bands in such a way such that Creed, for example, sells umpteen million albums, and a band that no one's ever heard of, like Evanescence suddenly appears and sells millions more."

While BMI could do something like this, that's not their job. That's largely the job of the record company.

BMI collects royalties for performance rights and distributes them to composers, songwriters and music publishers. While they (as well as the other artist rights' society in the US, ASCAP) will tout the list of big-name artists who are BMI members, they're not in th business of promoting some of their artists over others -- they serve all of their members.

"For what it's worth, I believe companies like BMI are behind getting sub-standards like those I mentioned (and certainly many others) airplay, while many other bands who are more sophisticated, never see the light of day....or the airwaves, or whatever."

Not really. Any songwriter or composer may join BMI. They are a performers' rights organization, not a PR firm, advertising agency, or record company.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:BMI is not the RIAA by black+mariah · 2004-09-04 05:44 · Score: 2, Informative

BMI does no such thing, and has absolutely no incentive to. It doesn't matter how many albums a band sells, they still pay the same fees to BMI that everyone else does; about $300 per year.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.

Friends? by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-09-04 04:39 · Score: 3, Funny

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

The entire online community is not your 'friend'.

It's not about money, it's about controll by argoff · 2004-09-04 04:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

In the next few years, it will be easier to nuke every city in the planet than it will be to reign in the unrestricted flow of information. The Media industries simply can't maintain their monopoly alone anymore, so they're trying to microregulate all the technology industries and fear monger everyone else.

PS: which executive candidate do you think is in the pocket of the media industries, and which do you think is in the pocket of the tech industries?

Bringing an artist's bottom line into existence by tepples · 2004-09-04 04:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.

"They're pirating our records!"

"How can we get them to buy our records? What's something we can offer that the pirates can't?"

"Ummm... liner notes?"

"Bingo. Let's have $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER get her butt done and put more pictures in the liner notes of her next album."

So then the label advances $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER the money for cosmetic surgery on her backside, effecting her bottom line.

Artists? Starving? by blair1q · 2004-09-04 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Corporate ownership of music should be outlawed.

It's unnecessary.

BMI is not a record company! by shark72 · 2004-09-04 04:52 · Score: 4, Informative

BMI is a performance rights organization. They are not part of the money flow involved with buying a CD. They are non-profit, run by and for artists and composers -- the "good guys" according to many Slashdotters.

They handle public performances. Not CD sales..

Again: BMI = good guys. They collect money for artists and performers -- the little guys. And this money does not come from CD sales. It would be a stretch to claim that P2P would have any effect on BMI's revenue stream. It's all explained here.

This has to be the mother of all straw men, folks.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

Re:BMI is not a record company! by antiMStroll · 2004-09-04 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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! by mog007 · 2004-09-04 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Learn something new.

Copyright never killed anyone? by DrSkwid · 2004-09-04 04:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

not quite true

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

"Barrowing" music? by CaptainTux · 2004-09-04 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"

Re:"Barrowing" music? by HeghmoH · 2004-09-04 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

when did we not borrow copies? by fermion · 2004-09-04 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black

Re:I'm hungry by ToasterTester · 2004-09-04 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

it's not the artists that aren't starving... by twiggy · 2004-09-04 05:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Actually, the artists are still starving, it's the labels that aren't... see The Problem With Music, by Steve Albini. The labels are making plenty of money, choking the artist's bankrolls, and then blaming piracy for the supposed industry decline (and convincing artists it's piracy that is killing their bankrolls)...

--
http://www.babysmasher.com
http://www.openingbands.com

Not for profit by Inv8r+Zim · 2004-09-04 05:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Just to take issue with the headline, Broadcast Music International is a non-profit entity, so saying its profits hit a record high is misleading. They collect royalties for musical artists' radio, TV and other media performances, but they do not "Profit!" from them.

My band, which had a major label deal in the nineties but imploded in a drug fueled haze over a decade ago, still see an incremental uptick in BMI checks every quarter. Go figure.

Re:Inflation by shark72 · 2004-09-04 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect by Proudrooster · 2004-09-04 05:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Remember that:
Affect is a verb.
Effect is a noun.

So then the label advances $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER the money for cosmetic surgery on her backside, affecting her bottom line.
Checkout Grammar for Geeks

Recently, I started attending college and made this same fatal mistake several times in a paper. A quick way to remember the difference is "affect the effect" or "When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it." Overall, you demonstrate good punctuation and writing style. :)

"You are so convinced that you believe only what you believe that you believe,
that you remain utterly blind to what you really believe without believing you believe it."
-Carlotta

Re:Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect by bleak+sky · 2004-09-04 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

You miss an important point: effect can be used as a verb--it just means something different than affect.
To effect something is to build it or bring it into existence.

Thanks for playing, though.

"Chock full of links"? by TheFrood · 2004-09-04 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative

No, it's chock full of 404's. Here are the correct links:

open and vicious attack on fair use
bring civil cases themselves
bends its statistics

--
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.

You know what BMI does, right? by werdna · 2004-09-04 05:46 · Score: 4, Informative

BMI does not sell records, and its revenues do not depend upon record sales. BMI is one of three main competing performance rights associations (ASCAP and SESAC are two others), who control the exclusive right to publicly perform (as opposed to distribute and reproduce) music. Typical licensees are restaurants, night clubs and radio stations.

Presumably, even pirates eat, party and listen to the radio.

Not that I don't sympathize with your position, but BMI is in a different business from the RIAA.

An easy answer to your question by werdna · 2004-09-04 05:57 · Score: 2, Informative

The artists don't make money when the BMI does. BMI represents composers, not artists.

At least two copyrights are implicated whenver you listen to a recorded song; (1) the copyrght of the musical work (noticed with a "c-in-circle"); and (2) the copyright of the phonorecord (noticed with a "p-in-circle"). The composer owns the (c), the performing artists own the (p).

BMI collects license fees from places like nightclubs for the right to publicly perform the song. That fee is divided using arcane formulae among subscribing composers. It has nothing to do with record sales.

In other news, the RIAA is now lobbying... by ZackSchil · 2004-09-04 06:06 · Score: 2, Funny

In other news, the RIAA is now lobbying to ban friendship, stating that it has lost over 500 billion dollars in profits in the last month alone. Both major political parties have issued public statements that appear to contain 3-4 pages of dog barking. Ralph Nader issued a 10,000 word rebuttal, filled with outrage but no one seemed to notice. They were too busy watching Celebrity Fear Factor.

Something just occured by bairy · 2004-09-04 06:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

There is a general hatred for RIAA and all the other idiots because CDs are so expensive and because so much goes to the record company and very little to the artist.
Why not download an album, then send $15 directly to the artist, maybe send a couple of bucks to the record company.

OK It's not feasible of course, but if it was possible it might just give the record companies a kick in the pants.

Ok, so this isn't the most useful of posts but an interesting thought.

--

Get paid to search..It's geniune and

Re:Inflation by VoxCombo · 2004-09-04 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

A real studio still takes way over $20,000 to set up. More in the range of ten times that. 2,000 gets you a computer in a bedroom, not a studio.

Also, duplication can be had for about 50 cents per CD (i doubt this figure includes packaging), but professional replication (as opposed to duplication which is done on CDRs, not regular CDs) costs much more. A typical major label, large quaqntity release costs about $1 per CD to manufacture and package. SMaller quantities cost more per unit, up to the $3 per CD range

Marketing is insanely more enpensive now than it was in the '80s, and marketing costs are such a large piece of the pie, that it nearly renders production and manufacturing costs irrelevant in the big sceme of things.

Back to Economic Basics by gyges · 2004-09-04 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

Re:Inflation by shark72 · 2004-09-04 06:48 · Score: 2, Informative

No problem, that figure surprises a lot of people. The data is here (note I was a little high; it's $13.29 now, down from $13.79 last year). The reason why many folks balk at that average price is because it's a mathematical average of all new CDs sold, and I think many if not most Slashdotters don't buy the most popular music (but they might be "sharing" it ;-) ).

It's common practice nowadays for retailers to put a hot new release out at $11.99 or $12.99. During the first few weeks at that price, it will sell a metric buttload of copies, thus offsetting the relatively few copies of $17.99 CDs that are sold at the same time. Thus $13.29 is the average price, and not the typical price when you look at all the CDs on the market, unweighted by their popularity.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

This is what we need... by generationxyu · 2004-09-04 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Record companies (not the RIAA) and artists (not Lars Ulrich) coming out against the DMCA and the restrictions against fair use and P2P. Get the artists to say that they make money off of filesharing. This is an old argument, but a true one... I first heard Modest Mouse when a friend of mine burned me a CD of theirs. I fell in love with the band, and bought that and their four other albums. I've also spread the word that Modest Mouse rocks my socks, and gotten several other people into them as well.

--
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.

Slashdot Mirror

BMI Reports All-Time Profit High Despite Piracy

75 of 335 comments (clear)