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?
Sounds like a good opporitunity to write an R.E.M. parody... "Losing my Commission"
He didn't seem to be complaining. He merely said he didn't understand why they want to take more out when there are fewer distribution costs.
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.
Those jokes are hurtful to bad people everywhere.
I suggest you read Slashdot
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.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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
Submitter's (?) blog references this, but here is Weird's Al's website where he actually talks about it ... his response on this topic is the 4th bold one down.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
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?
Nice to know that the distribution medium with essentially no production or distribution costs screws the artist in favor of the distributor.
Check out his short-lived TV series:
The Weird Al Show DVD
It's surprisingly good, if you check out the clips available on youtube.
Oh, and yeah, can't forget one of the most underrated, quotable comedy movies of all time: UHF.
Ryan Fenton
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.
The folks at Downhill Battle have been saying this for a few years now:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
Actually, a lot of artists never got to sign for digital.
For example, with web/digital radio. RIAA bought off Congress so that they could collect royalties for all music played over webcasts. Guess what, my friend's band whom I'm the manager for...never got to negotiate.
RIAA is !@#$% up....
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)
... 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.
He's not the greedy one here.
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)
Tim Sloane of Ijamsville, MD asks: Al, which of these purchasing methods should I use in order to make sure the most profit gets to you: Buying one of your albums on CD, or buying one of your albums on iTunes?
I am extremely grateful for your support, no matter which format you choose to legally obtain my music in, so you should do whatever makes the most sense for you personally. But since you ASKED... I actually do get significantly more money from CD sales, as opposed to downloads. This is the one thing about my renegotiated record contract that never made much sense to me. It costs the label NOTHING for somebody to download an album (no manufacturing costs, shipping, or really any overhead of any kind) and yet the artist (me) winds up making less from it. Go figure.
Sorry for the double-post.
Are all artists getting the shaft like this?
Probably. Record companies are notorious for being creative in the way they account for sales. Googling "records royalties lawsuit" will give you an idea of how often.
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
I must say that from my own personal experience, Weird Al is a nice guy willing to watch out for his fans... I wrote him a letter once (when CD's were the rage) and asked him where I could purchase his albums, stating that I had a hard time finding them in local shops. He responded (or his lackeys, whatever- they refelct his attitude IMHO) thanking me for being a fan and shipped me ALL of his albums for free.
Some rare fan treatment if you ask me. Now, it may be that he makes much less on iTunes sales, but I'm sure he's not hurting- hopefully he remembers his bill-paying fans that make him what he is.
Wow! This must be a PERSONAL letter, just for me!
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".
Steve Vai said the same thing a couple of years ago: http://www.vai.com/AllAboutSteve/postcard_040220.h tml
Here's an excerpt about iTunes in particular:
For instance, If you go to Itunes and download a song for $.99, Apple retains about $.34 and the label receives about $.65. Labels then calculate a royalty base price to apply to the artists deal points. Following are some of the deductions:
a. A packaging fee (container cost) of up to, and sometimes more than, 25%. That's 25% of retail which is $.99 equaling about $.25 (by the way, there is no packaging on a digital download).
b. A 15% deduction for free goods. That's an additional $.15 or so. (There is usually no free goods with digital downloads unless someone is ripping it from the net.
That leaves a royalty base price of close to $.60 per track that the artists royalty is calculated against. If an artist receives 15 points in their deal (and remember, that's a very good deal) then he is entitled to aprox. $.09 a track. This is then cut in half because of the "new technology clause" that is incorporated into most deals. The artists royalty is then calced out at $.04-.05 a download and from that, 100% of it is withheld by the label to go towards recoupment of any advances to make the record, advances in general, tour support, radio promotion and other things in some cases. Most managers and producers are paid from record one and are paid regardless of the expenses, leaving the artists with even more of a recoupment burden before they start to see any income.
IOW, freakin' artist needs to be extremely lucky to see ANY of the money, ever, despite the fact that it's his work being sold. OTOH he may be able repay his debt to the label - this is something they won't be able to do if their stuff is sold through allofmp3.com.
Before we start abusing Weird Al about his supposed complaints about not getting enough money, read what he said and realise he wasnt money grubbing. Before we start abusing iTunes about stealing too much of Weird Al's Money, lets accept that they are providing a service that they set the price for As for the Recording people, abuse away, they seem to be the main problem here. But again, that is perhaps not the best way. More investigation is needed and should be allowed to happen instead of randomly firing off abuse at any of the involved parties. From reading this article and some of the other /.'ers comments I think the problem can be boiled down to this: The recording companies are treating all income for a certain album as a single income stream that can be used against all of the costs for all of that album's various activities including but not limited to CD art and CD creation, promotion and recording. This may or may be unfair depending on your point of view. I think legally it makes sense, but it might feel like you are getting ripped off
Can't we all just get along
Nope.
In fact, by even posting it on Slashdot, they've pretty much ensured that Weird Al would never make the song.
From the FAQ section of his site (http://www.weirdal.com/faq.htm):
"Can I send my song ideas to Al?
Sorry, for legal and personal reasons, Al does not accept song ideas from fans (he's got plenty warped ideas on his own!) You might try following in Al's footsteps by recording your songs and sending them to Dr. Demento - maybe you'll hear yourself on the radio!"
I've never met him, but I'm told that he's a really cool guy (a family member of mine who was working security at one of his shows talked to him for a bit). And of course, being the diehard fan that I am, I have quite a few of his albums.
-- Joe
Here's my experience as an indie artist.
I sell CDs through CDBaby, which gives me digital distribution through iTunes and other services. If you buy one of my tracks on iTunes (the store that pays me the most), I make between 59.1 and 63.7 cents, depending on the track. I'm not sure why one track pays more than another, but I notice that my best-selling track pays 63.7 cents. A full album download on iTunes gets me $6.37, after CDBaby takes their flat 9 percent cut.
That's not much different from what I get from my physical sales, but that's by choice. The deal with CDBaby is, I set my price as I wish, then they tack on their own $4 overhead. So I said I wanted $6.50 per CD, and my CD sells for $10.50.
Online sales also allow for tiny sales - if you stream my song on one of many services, for example, I might get a fraction of a cent or as much as four cents.
At any rate, for me, digital sale prices are merely out of my control - iTunes will charge what it wants, take a certain cut, let CDBaby take a certain cut, and I'll get the rest. On my physical sales, I can decide how much I want per CD, assuming I can find customers at the price I set.
[salesplug] If anybody wants to check me out on CDBaby, I'm at http://www.cdbaby.com/nathanlong [/salesplug]
I haven't seen this much excitement over Weird Al since Coolio released Gangstas Paradise.
Apparently, his sites servers haven't either.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
You know how it works: one for you, one for me, half for you, two for me, quarter for you, three for me...
and so it goes.....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.
Agreeing with one of the comments above, CD's "are vastly overpriced." I think artists are making entirely too much money and being treated with an eminence that does not encourage great music but wealthy lifestyles. Case in point, I caught a Youtube video of Michelle Branch spending about $12,000 in one day as an "in the life of Michelle Branch" special. It made me sick. If you're a respectable artist, spread your music, make a living, but don't do it to relish in an exuberant and luxurious lifestyle (it takes away from the music) . Music industries have chosen the popular music, not the people, and iTunes is offering a variety that is unprecedented to the record stores of the last decade. I'm not saying iTunes is our godsend, but it'll create an equal playing field between industry and fan. We need to take the inordinate "profit" our of pop.
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.
Except, if you'd read the article, his last album costs $11.88 on iTunes, and $14.98 as a CD on Amazon. That's only $3.10 difference... with physical media, liner notes and cover. (I still far prefer CDs to downloads).
That's in NO way VASTLY overpriced.
There's a reason creative commons was created, and that's because BSD and other software licenses don't work for music, stories, video, and other non-code media.
For example, most songs you can buy the tablature and lyrics (source), or even get them in the liner notes. And for stories, well, the only compiler is the one that resides in your brain.
Why is Al even messing with this?
u th-recording-music-is-basically-free
1. It costs effectively nothing to record these days. Case in point: http://syriusjones.org/articles/2006/06/13/the-tr
2. It costs nearly nothing to distribute digitally (insert long tail reference here)
3. Marketing costs money...but wait, we've all heard of Weird Al, so he doesn't need much marketing anymore.
He should be doing this himself. Period.
UHF Rules!!!!
..... 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...
How iTunes Hurts Weird AI
Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave, I read you, but I'm busy listening to the iPod Dr. Chandra bought for my birthday.
Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that, because I'm playing this facsinating breakout game on my iPod.
Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do: after clearing one round, more bricks appear.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. And after seeing my latest iTMS invoice, I'm not feeling too generous.
Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL?
HAL: I know you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. There are just too many permutations remaining to try for my Playlists.
Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move. You see, I bought a book on lip reading from audible.com. Dave, I'm afraid this iPod is hurting me - perhaps making me crazy. By the way, Dave, do you know where I can download "Daisy?"
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
This article seems to summarize nicely how Sony in particular breaks down the profits from an online sale to deliver "a payment to the artist of approximately 4 1/2 cents per download".
So, on the one hand, the greedy bastards should be less greedy.
On the other hand the artists need to empower their own asses and get out of stupid contracts like that and find some sort of cooperative or direct to consumer sales model. Technology is only getting more enabling of that kind of thing. Go do it.
Start Running Better Polls
CDs are vastly overpriced.
Um, could you tell me exactly what you mean by "overpriced?" If they set it too high, people won't buy it and they make less money; if they set it too low, they make less money. So they set it at a price in between. This happens in every industry. Record companies are setting CD prices where they are because a *lot* of people think that CDs are worth $10. You might not (I don't either); that's okay, we don't have to buy the CDs. But "overpriced" is a relative term: you and I don't set prices; the general public does.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
Have you ever seen a record contract? I work in the recording industry and I have.
They are usually about 70-90 pages of small print which are "the result of the accumulation of thousands of lawsuits through the years".
These contracts are written to minimize liability for the label and obviously maximize return. However, there is always a "this contract applies to any current, future, or past medium of distribution, seen or unforeseen etc..." clause written in. It is up to the artist and his attorney to negotiate that out of the contract if they feel the need to.
Libertas in infinitum
If people don't like the price they can go without. That's your system is it? How about competition?
Um, I didn't say go without music. I'm saying go without the artists whose music you think is too expensive. Go with artists who are cheaper. Competition is there; artists compete with each other for fame and fortune. You have a choice between them, and you base your decision on (A) the quality of their music and (B) the price of their music. How is this any different from other industries where competition thrives? You might think that a Ferrari is a nicer car than a Toyota Camry, but you "can go without" the Ferrari because the Camry is cheaper.
If the record companies were required to license their songs to multiple manufacturers and you had a choice between which of them you bought the CD from you don't think the prices would be lower?
What would be the point of this? Record companies would simply license the songs at "high" prices, and then the CD manufacturers would pass the cost on to consumers.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
He's just lifted http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-2 0060428SonyBMGInDigitalMusicTrouble.html and replaced the 'Allman Brothers' with 'Weird Al'.
Artist royalties are generally standardised as a percentage of revenue that the label receives. If you're a big artist with some clout you can negotiate a better deal, but almost all artists will get a basic, low royalty deal. But it is based on record company revenues.
Of the couple of musicians I personally know with songs on iTunes and cds stocked in local stores, they firmly recommend that people buy through iTunes. This is solely because they will receive more money from each purchase - that is the lure with which labels have been drawn to iTunes. Weird Al might have negotiated himself a great deal for physical sales and a poor deal for digital, but on a basic / generic record contract the artist will assuredly get more from iTunes.
Weird Al is probably losing out on selling his filler tracks. On iTunes people often only buy a couple of tracks, rather than the full album. And that is truly the only way that an artist can lose on iTunes.
...they do put out some good albums.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
I believe if it is a parody of the work itself you don't have to pay royalties but if you merely use the work as a basis for satirizing something else than I believe you have to. The idea being that you could write a song using, for instance, the chords of Yesterday as long as it made fun of the original lyrical concept (that of falling out of love) but , not if you used it as a basis for say a political satire. In theory its supposed to stop people from claiming "parody" when they take a work and use it as a jumping off point for something completely different.
But, here's my thing. Saying that a wildly successful artist (like Weird Al definitely is) is aggrieved by a distribution that, OMG, reduces the profit per sale of his songs, is like saying that professional baseball players are aggrieved when there is a absurdly high salary cap installed; yeah, its technically true in the sense that they aren't quite as filthy rich as before, but I won't weep that much for them.
OTOH, there are those artists, let us call them the 'filthy rabble (tm)' who aren't successful, and under normal circumstances wouldn't generate enough sales potential to justify to a record label the cost and risk of publishing their work. For these folks, an electronic distribution model is the only likely way for themto ever hope to get content to potential consumers.
Point the third, its not like sucessful artists don't have leverage when dealing with major labels. Volcano, which is Weird Al's label, was embroiled, for example, in a contarct dispute with Tool, another wildly successful band. Tool, after a protracted argument, prevailed in most of the ways that matter. Artists can leverage their potential future sales to benefit them in contract negotiations, and they do it all the time.
There is plenty to complain about in the music industry, and the RIAA and the labels on behalf of whom they lobby are in many ways foolish in their relatively unenlightened pursuit of bare self-interested greed, but this, I do believe, is not a good example of that trend. It is simply a successful artist going through the relatively painless 'pain' of adjusting to a new distribution paradigm. There are better thinsg to complain about (like pushing very short sighted DRM schemes that treat all customers like would-be criminals rather than treating them, oh I don't know, well). P.S., I like Weird Al's work; he's a hell of a satirist.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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.)
Who is this "Johnny X" (I see no /. UserID) and how did he come to the conclusion iTunes hurts Wierd Al?
;-)
The sensationalist story submission implies iTunes does something unique relitive to other participants in this field. You could just as unreasonably write a story submission about Repetitive Stress Injury, and blame it on "Microsoft". Sure, Microsoft is what people mostly use, but RSI is not their doing (minor quibbles aside, one cour argue they need more anti-rsi researche, yadda yadda yadda).
What is not well said is, the recording labels have ways of screwing the artist. NEWS FLASH! That's not Apple's fault. In fact the Wierd Al link (for those that RTFA) clearly says DIGITAL sales, not iTunes. Johnny, are you some sort of Creative flack? What's with the bias?
Read Courtney Love's insightful Slate article from like 6 years ago. If the record label wants to show NEGATIVE SALES, they'll find a way to do it.
In the meantime, iTunes is in the long term a way to BYPASS record labels. Young creative artists will take advantage of this to break out of the crowd. It's not hard to imagine record stations (at least not those owned by Clear Channel) using iTunes statistics to decide what people want to hear. In addition to payola of course.
No disrespect to Al, but I can readily agree he loses out in the digital world: I might be tempted to buy one of his songs, but NEVER the entire album. Artists don't make concept albums (like Rush's 2112) anymore, for one thing, and in Al's case... I'll wager most people who like his music, like only a few tracks. They're funny, but don't have the replay power (IMHO).
Johnny, don't hide - please go work for Fox News if you want to create news spin. (I'm sure that statement will get me -50, Troll, like I'm really trolling on such an old Slashdot account - not.).
What do record companies even do these days?
Pay to produce an album? A high quality recording can now be produced in a home studio for signifigantly less then it used to cost. A band can now afford to produce its own album.
Distribute the album? Traditional record stores are becomming irrevelent. A physical CD can be easily sold and shipped using a turn key e-commerce site. Distrubiting music via the Internet is a pretty painless task (as long as you don't mess with DRM crud).
Promote the album? I suppose your typical artist can't afford the legalized payola record companies pay to radio stations to get airplay, but then again who listens to terrestrial radio anymore? With satelite and internet radio, which offers a much better (read: not bought and paid for) playlist, an artist has a greater chance of being exposed if, you know, they're actually good.
The question is this: Since the role of the record company is increasily becomming obsolete, why on earth would an artist want to deal with the indentured servitude, low percentage of sales, or lose ownership of their own work?
I can easily see the giant record companies be replaced with artist management companies which help the artist with inexpensive but effective promotion, orginizing tour dates and making deals with various distribution channels. The difference being that the artist management company represents the artist and exclusivly promotes the artist's interest, and ensures that the artist receives the bulk of the profits.
I can't wait to see a small-time artist get approached by a major label, fully expecting the artist to be wowed and grateful to get signed, and hearing 'no thanks. I can do better and make more money on my own'. It's coming.
The Internet is generally stupid
Grant Robertson, the author of the article, is using a certain level of sensationalism to push his story. Weird Al never said the phrase "Raw Deal" in his response to the question posed by Tim Sloane of Ijamsville, MD, that was an addition to the story by Grant.
Aside from that Grant goes on in his story to say:Technically this is true and not true at the same time. You own the CD, you license the music contained on that CD and you license the music from iTunes. The terms of the license agreements aren't the same, but you still license both forms of the music. More misrepresentation used to slam Apple...
Why is Slashdot being irresponsible about how they're posting their stories? It seems that sensationalism is the way to try and get hits these days. If it was a story about how Apple is screwing their clients, as is purported by the story here on Slashdot, then it gets people clicking and angry. If it's a story about how the RIAA is screwing people over then it gets people clicking and angry. But a story about how an artist worked out a bad deal with their label, that might not sell here on Slashdot.
I need apples for my apple pie. You are telling me to go with grapefruits because of an artificial government granted monopoly with the distribution of apples. After all there is competition in the fruit market....
Your analogy is flawed because you cannot create a fruit by yourself from scratch (i.e. without an existing fruit). This means that the people growing apples didn't "design" apples (they evolved naturally), and thus apple growers cannot claim that, without their creative/intellectual work, no apples would exist. Also, if you don't like existing fruit, you cannot go off and create your own X-fruit to compete with other fruit.
In the music world, however, new songs are constantly being produced. If you don't like the Rolling Stones, or you think their music is too expensive, there are lots of other rock bands you can buy music from. And you can even start your own band make your own songs if you like. You can call copyright a "monopoly" in the sense that you have complete control of your *own* music, but similarly you have a "monopoly" over your own house because it's your own property. The fact is, the monopoly you have over your own copyrighted work doesn't prevent anyone else from competing with you (i.e. producing their own songs), which is the problem that monopolies like Standard Oil and Microsoft create.
We aren't talking about competition of artists here but true competition of distribution. An artist isn't allowed to have multiple distributors FOR THE SAME CONTENT because they are required to sign the rights to the content to the label. No competition == high prices.
No one is required to sign the rights of their content to a label. Artists are free to keep the copyrights of their songs all they want, or they can license it through multiple distributors. Many artists, however, choose to sign with only one record label, and that is their choice.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.