Slashdot Mirror
How iTunes Hurts Weird Al
Johnny X writes "Weird Al Yankovic recently said he makes far less money when you buy from iTunes than when you buy an actual CD. This guy did the math and showed that Weird Al could be losing up to 85% of his record sales income due to the 'weird' ways the record companies compute digital sales. Are all artists getting the shaft like this?"
Is the RIAA still in charge?
CDs are vastly overpriced.
How we know is more important than what we know.
TFA seems to blame iTunes, at least at heart. Wouldn't the actual problem here be the messed up, backwards, hacked way the (MP|RI)AA have decided to handle this newfangled technology called the internet?
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Record companies find ways to give artists even less money. You knew it was going to happen. To the record companies, it is not about the music, but the money. Since the early days in the 50's they have been writing draconian contracts, then stealing the copyrights from the artists (remember the "musicians are craftsmen not artists" argument they were throwing around) and now this. Pretty soon, the artists will have to PAY the record companies for the priviledge of getting screwed.
Isn't this interesting, after all the noise the industry made about going after illegal music downloads, all in the name of helping the artists. They then turn around and pay the artist next to nothing for the iTunes download you are supposed to buy because you want to 'support the artist'.
Musicians will continue to "get the shaft" as long as they rely on majors.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
Even if Al is making less per song, does that mean anyone who bought one of his songs or records from iTunes would've otherwise purchased a brand new CD? Or might they have bought a used one, or none at all?
I remember reading a UNDP report a while back on the development of countries in Africa. The researchers observed that the international market prices of commodities such as coffee or sugar were higher then than at any time in the past, and yet in the last few years the prices payed to the small farmers was at its lowest point in the past 60 years.
The reason for this apparent contradiction was the fact that small farmers can't sell their wares directly to the final consumer who brews coffee at home. Rather, this coffee is bought up by one of a handful of multinationals, who because they are so few, more or less dictate prices to the farmers, and then sell it on to the consumers. The fact that there are few of these middle men puts them in a position of power which allows them to make off with the king's share of the profits, and indeed they absorb the price hikes.
Maybe its time musicians got together and set up an electronic coop to sell their music the way farmers sometimes set up "farmers markets". They could have more control over their prices, and how much of what consumers pay goes to them.
Shouldn't the internet be making it easier to cut out the middle man like this?
Slashdot: news from nerds.
Im curious now if he's talking about the percentage he gets or if he's talking about volume. In other words, is he making less because people just buy the songs they want?
If it's the former, well the RIAA just plain sucks. (I'm sure this will be heavily covered before this topic is closed so I'm not going to bother being more eloquent.)
If it's the latter... sorry Al, I think you're talented and love your music, but that's supply and demand, man. If iTunes means a fairer price for all involved, then I'd ask you to take it in stride. The RIAA had quite the gold mine going there, and I don't blame them for trying to maintain it, but we legit customers were getting gouged.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I expect to be modded down for this, but there needs to be a reality check regarding Apple. Famously the love of Apple is cultish, but they are a publicly traded company. (Disclaimer: I am fan of Apple myself)
What you need to remember about publicly traded companies is that their only real obligation is to the stock holders. That means it shouldn't be a shock that iTunes screws artists or that Apple will employ sweatshop workers to create iPods.
You know who else is publicly traded? Google. Because of that stockholder obligation you can probably expect their mantra to change from "Do no evil" to "We do less evil than everyone else".
... and I don't feel sorry for him in the least.
I like Wierd Al, and even own a few of his CDs. But today, there is absolutely no reason for ANY musician to be beholden to a record company with a draconian contract that pays them practically nothing. The cost of recording equipment is a tiny fraction of what it was 20 years ago and the internet allows artists to sell their work directly to the public with no need for a record company to handle distrubution and take their 99.9% cut.
There is no reason why Wierd Al (or any other musician) can't record his music in his own studio, have the CDs pressed (there are companies out there that do it for $1 per CD) and then set up a website to sell the CDs as well as digital downloads. He gets 100% of the profits, we get to hear the music and the RIAA goes out of business.
CDs cost about $15-$20. The record label takes most of it, and the artist gets a little cut. iTunes CDs cost about $10. Apple gets a moderate cut (only about a third of what you pay), the record label still gets the lion's share, and there's even less of a smaller pie left for the artist. Apple benefits - they don't pay the costs associated with producing the music, their cut is enough to maintain the fairly high bandwidth and server costs to keep the service running and turn a small profit, all while selling more iPods. The record label benefits - they get less money, but still more than half the cost, and it costs them pretty much _nothing_ once they've handed over the digital music to Apple. Plus, a lot of people that buy iTunes music would have pirated otherwise, not paid for a full price CD. The artist, as always, gets screwed - artists have made *some* progress in increasing their share of CD sales, but when it was time to renegotiate to include iTunes sales, the record labels already owned existing artists' music, so it wasn't like the artists could back out and look for a better deal on the digital front.
Piracy is, in most people's opinions, the best option even before price is considered - much more convenient than going to a store or waiting for a CD to get mailed to you, wider selection and no DRM compared to iTMS and similar services... From right at home and in practically no time, one can acquire almost any piece of music and be listening to it, right from just about any internet-capable computer. Factor in free vs. rather overpriced, and it's pretty obvious why piracy is so popular.
So how can we support our favourite artists? For those who tour, the best method is probably to go to live concerts. Artists tend to get a bigger cut from tours than from CD sales, and going to shows gives you an experience you _can't_ replace with a better alternative for free. Put aside all the money you would have used to buy CDs and go to shows instead.
The only big problem left before the music industry can evolve to a more artist-centric process is the prohibitive cost of studio time / recording equipment. The digital age means that any artist can cheaply and easily distribute his/her music, once recorded, but most fledgling artists can't afford to record on good equipment. The one useful function (at least from a market perspective) record labels still serve is to select which artists get time in the expensive studios; there's not enough high-fi sound equipment for every high school garage band to record an album, and currently the labels are the deciding factor in who gets to record and who doesn't. There could certainly be better systems to decide this, but none are in place right now on a wide scale.
In cases like this, I'm all in favor of the editors modifying the submitter's links. Not only does Aaron Hockley's blog offer no more information than what he submitted to Slashdot, but in his "Blogging" cattegory he clearly states that he's actively engaging in this sort of activity for his own personal benefit (don't bother, it's not worth the look nor the additional clicks to his 'blog').
This is a completely fucked up model. And what is sad is that the record labels have been doing this to artists for DECADES. Why is the only person in the loop that has creativity/talent/unique ability getting 5% of the money while all of the suits, lawyers, and management are sucking up 65%? I can understand some cost in production, but with modern technology you can do it for a few grand in software and hardware in your home.
iTunes/Apple is not the problem. The are just bringing to light the awful business practices of the record labels and the way they treat their slave labor....I mean artists.
"Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
If you are going to say something like that, please actually read the article.
"Apple did work, and got paid for it. You did an arguably larger portion of the work, by creating something people wanted to buy in the first place, so Apple got a little money, and you got a good deal more."
He is saying here you did work, they sold your work, they take a cut and pass the rest back. Fair enough. However he goes on to say "Unfortunately, that's not how this version of the universe operates. So Apple sends the check to your record label."
And he then goes on to discuss where the money goes to the record label.
The conclusion he reaches is basically "If all of your fans bought through iTunes rather than buying CDs at the record store you'd be looking at an overall reduction in income of 85%!" however he is quite clear through the article that the record companies take a lions share of that money
Moving from fact into speculation, let's examine what's happening here
Case 1:
Man records songs, Record label puts work into creating CD labeling, packaging, promoting and so on. Record label organizes with Distribution company to sell CD's and gets money in return.
Cost of Final Product: $15-$20.
Case 2: Man records songs, Record label puts work into creating CD labeling, packaging, promoting and so on. Record label organizes with itunes to use all the fancy stuff they created for the CD and sell the product over Itunes.
Cost of Final Product: $0.99 * songs or $10, whichever is less
The same costs are involved in doing both. Until artists only release online, the CD cost will have to be recouped as well anyway, so it shouldn't be a huge shock to anyone that the cheaper product provides a worse return on investment for the same work.
Can't we all just get along
"But I don't think Weird Al is hurting for money..."
That matters because....?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
There are very few people who actually have any taste in music. The vast majority of music purchases are made by shleps buying whatever is on the radio or MTV. So who is on the radio or MTV?
Whoever the record labels SAY should be on the radio or MTV.
So, no reason to pay the artists anything - if the artist you're talking to doesn't want to take a small percentage of the record sales, then you just find somebody else who will, make THEM the star, and then they can rake it in on concert ticket sales.
People do not understand that pricing has NOTHING to do with what it costs to provide a service. It has to do with what people are willing to pay to get a service. And most new artists are willing to pay the vast majority of their record (or download) sales to have the services of a record label.
Also, the article is wrong about WHO is getting the artist's money. The money the artist isn't getting isn't going to the LABEL, it's going to the CONSUMER:
Price of Al's CD on Amazon: $14.98
Price of Al's CD on iTunes: $11.88
That's a difference of $3.10. Al 'apparently' loses $0.27 per song (not $0.265, article has rounding problems). $0.27 x 12 = $3.24!
So, when Al comes up short $3.24 because a consumer got an album for $3.24 less on iTuns than on Amazon, who got that $3.24?
The CONSUMER did!
Now, I'm not saying this is FAIR. Clearly, the record label is making much more money on iTunes sales since, as mentioned, they don't have to pay for a lot of things they would if they distributed music by physical CD. But... why should Al get any of that? Al has agreed to pay the record company a certain amount for the record company's services. The record company gets the same amount whether the CD is sold online or on the shelves. If Al doesn't want to lose money to his stuff being sold on iTunes, he should renegotiate his contract to not allow iTunes sales. I bet most artists wouldn't do that though, because they make most of their money on concerts, and being on iTunes helps them sell tickets.
The *REAL* problem here is not that Al isn't getting more money. The real problem is that the CONSUMER is still paying the record company CD distribution prices instead of digital distribution prices. In a free market, we would expect digital downloads to be much cheaper than $0.99, because the various distributors would compete against each other reduce the inflated margins the record companies (and iTunes) are getting based on CD priving. But since iTunes is a fairly insulated monopoly at this point, even though the CD *COSTS* of distribution have gone away, the CD *PRICING* hasn't.
So, who is REALLY at fault for the artist getting no money AND the record company and iTunes still getting full price?
APPLE! They've set the $0.99 price and are putting no pressure on the record labels to lower it.
paintball
Al's not really complaining. Someone asked him what medium gets him the most money, and here's what he had to say:
He's a little sarcastic about it, but that IMO doesn't come close to "complaining".
Or even better, tell him you are going to download one of his CDs and wire 10 bucks to a Paypal account of his choice.
Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
What if he licensed it under the BSD?
Then Weird Al couldn't have any legal problems, could he?
Almost wrote GPL first, but I'm not certain OpenSourcing the rest of the song wouldn't be a problem for Weird Al...
If I'm incoherent, it's the lack of sleep.
Ignore this signature. By order.
..... no really. He should.
He puts on such an insanely great live show, and his fans are so... well... fanatic, that when he does go on tour, people crawl over each other to get tickets. I've never seen a show of his that wasn't sold out.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Exactly. If the artist submits his stuff directly to iTunes he can pocket the $.63 directly rather than giving it all to the label. Any wonder why the RIAA is nervous?
Find coupons in Greeley
If I was Weird Al Yankowich, I'd skip the record label stage and distribute my music straight via iTunes and likes and get my fair share of the revenue. Music is and will be increasingly sold thru the Net, CD's are an outdated business model. (However, I don't want CD's to go the way of the dodo; I still want the booklets with their artwork and uncompressed, high-quality sound for my hifi systems.)