Kazaa Agrees to Pay $100m to the Record Industry

siddesu writes "BBC has the following breaking story: File-sharing site Kazaa will become a legal music download service following a series of high-profile legal battles. The peer-to-peer network has also agreed to pay $100m (£53m) in damages to the record industry. The announcement follows the release of a music industry report that says more than 20 billion music tracks have been downloaded illegally in the last year. Hungry artists across the globe rejoice."

Comments

just how much will each artist make?

[LiquidCoooled]

I know theres a lot of artists, but does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?

I personally think they will still be hungry.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Reverend528]

I know theres a lot of artists, but does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?

Technically, the artists now owe the RIAA money.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[KokorHekkus]

Who knows... but it doesn't look good for the smaller artists I guess.

To quote Janis Ian:

...from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show.

And she goes on to state her opinion on the downloads as:

Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.

Source: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[gid13]

I think the ones that are hungry are the ones that WANT people to download their stuff. And I think that labels are a monument to mediocrity and mistreatment. Let's not forget the guy from Creedence Clearwater, who got sued for copyright infringement OF HIS OWN WORK because the record label owned the copyright. Or, much as I may hate them, the Backstreet Boys, who, after several hugely popular albums, testified that they hadn't ever received a royalty cheque. Or DMX, who compared the music business to legalized slavery. Let's not forget that the major labels were convicted of price-fixing, and got the tiniest penalty imaginable. This is a short beginning of a very long list, but I'm not going to type it all. The point is: pretty much anything that results in the major labels getting more money is bad. And this likely will.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[peragrin]

Zero.

the RIAA isn't affilated with any artist. Just the lawyers athorized by their labels.

So the RIAA lawyers, and the riaa org. gets their cut, then the label's lawyers and the labels.

The artists themselves aren't worthy enough to recieve any moeny after those people take their cut.

it's really not that surprising. If the rumours are true for every download on itunes an artist recieves less than Apple's share. It's time for a music revolution.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

with the current track record for the RIAA, I imagine about 2% of that would go to the artists. Spread that money over the thousands of artists, and they might get enough money to afford a loaf of bread and a jar of no-name peanut butter.

so I agree, they will still be hungry.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[QuantumG]

The music industry reminds me of the carebear crafters you find in MMORPGs. They spend all day making helmets but when they go to the NPC to sell them they find that he won't give them much for them. So they try to sell them to passers-by but they aint interested in helmets. Everyone's got a helmet already. So they start telling people how great their helmets are and claim all sorts of magical properties that they don't really have, just in the hope that someone will try one of their helmets and see how great they are. Eventually they get bitter and upset. They complain loudly to the live team who suggest 'why don't you make swords?' But they don't want to make swords, they want to make helmets, and damn it, you better force the NPCs to pay a reasonable amount for them and force the players to buy new helmets (perhaps by making the old helmets rust).

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[ahsile]

Somwhere in the range of $0.00 I believe.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[musicwizard]

Most likely the artist will see none of these profits. Artist make very little on the sale of their music. Their money is made in concert venues and sales of merchandise. Why do you think they spend so much time on the road?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[dr_dank]

If the artists actually owned their music, they would see some decent money. After being pressured by the label, being told that there are a thousand more waiting in the wings to sign on the dotted line, lest they pass up the "chance of a lifetime", they'll sign anything, including the part about the label owning the copyright to their songs.

This is why you don't see a lot of mainstream artists endorsing the trading of their music. It usually isn't theirs to trade anymore.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Billosaur]

If the artists actually owned their music, they would see some decent money. After being pressured by the label, being told that there are a thousand more waiting in the wings to sign on the dotted line, lest they pass up the "chance of a lifetime", they'll sign anything, including the part about the label owning the copyright to their songs.

And even when an artist tries to retain control of their songs, business interests get in the way.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[kimvette]

After legal fees, administrative fees, and so forth are charged against the artists, the artists will OWE the labels money for this "protection." ;)

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

I just happened to tag onto your post as an interjection to the thread. I agree with your statement.

I'm trying to blend the "screw the record company offerings" and "family values" ideals together. Music instruments can be bought for little money these days. So can some music sequencing software for a PC. With the savings of several CD purchases, why not just learn to make your own music as a family? The trash being pumped out as Pop music these days proves that amateurs can make music.

Besides, I don't need to buy my music to enjoy the latest tunes. I have a (now deafened) neighbor that makes sure I can hear all the new stuff playing on his stereo.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away. If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.

And, of course, the argument that there's no other way to make it big is pointless too. Nobody is guaranteed the right to make money, only the freedom to attempt it. If they want to make money, and they can't do it through cartel members under teh RIAA, they should make an attempt on their own. If they don't make it, and fail, then they can go sit and cry in a beer with the other 90% of businesses that don't make it either (of course, we all know that because freedom provided by p2p and such is this huge legit business model rather than a place where 99.99% of all traffic is copyright infringement and/or porn or viruses, indy artists are all just going to be rolling in dough without the marketing muscle of the RIAA studios, right?).

Is the RIAA and its members abusive to artists and consumers? Absolutely.

Are artists under any obligation to sign contracts with them? Absolutely not.

Are consumers obligated to buy music from them? Absolutely not.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at $100M and 20 billion tracks, that's roughly half a cent per track.

Therefore, Britney Spears and the like will get a few dollars, whereas most other artists will get a few cents.

Minus the RIAA administration overhead, of course.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Or DMX, who compared the music business to legalized slavery.

I just wanted to add that a couple of years ago, some US Congressman (sadly, I don't remember who it was) said that the music business was like a bank that owned a mortgage on a house and after the mortgage was paid off, the bank still owned the house. I thought that was probably the most perceptive view of how the music business works that I have ever heard.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[russ1337]

I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away.

Have you ever managed to change the terms and conditions of your power bill, your phone contract, the EULA on your XP installation? When you are small fry you have the choice of signing what the record company offer, or nothing. Sure you can go somewhere else, but that other label is just has harsh.

The record companies have all the power; They have nothing to lose and will tell you that they'll 'just sign someone else'. You might get room to move a little within your 'negotiation', but until you make it big you have nothing to negotiate with.

That said, I'm glad you recognize that the RIAA is abusing its powers. Massive Props to you.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[paralaxcreations]

Besides, I don't need to buy my music to enjoy the latest tunes. I have a (now deafened) neighbor that makes sure I can hear all the new stuff playing on his stereo.

Better not say that too loud. The RIAA is hungry.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[miro f]

that has to be one of the most nonsensical, illogical, and confusing analogies ever introduced to mankind

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[ubermiester]

Without a tremendous initial investment in the recording, marketing and distribution of their material, (and in many cases the purchasing of actual material for a performer to perform), many of the artists would never have made ANY money in the biz. The Backstreet Boys were a completely manufactured enterprise - essentailly a product - who made their money as salaried employees. And when an artist who actually writes their own material makes the CHOICE to trade the rights to that material in exchange for the financial backing of a big corporation, they should not expect to receive any more than a deal with the devil will give them. Artists like Pavement and Fugazi, to name a couple, were never vaulted to the top of the charts by a marketing blitz at the mall, but they actually own their own material and do well enough to be professional musicians - i.e., they do nothing more than play music for a living. Perhaps DMX should have considered such a plan before he signed up to be a slave of the record industry.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[elrous0]

the Backstreet Boys, who, after several hugely popular albums, testified that they hadn't ever received a royalty cheque

The Backstreet Boys don't DESERVE any royalties. Like most "boy bands" they are NOT a band at all. They're actors who were hired for their look and dancing abilities. They were paid employees of some media mogul that created the "band" before these guys even appeared (there were probably even sketches of the band drawn up before the first audition was even held). These "band members" just showed up for the casting call. Their job was to look pretty, learn the dance moves, and learn to make their lipsyncing look at least somewhat realistic.

They were paid to play roles, not for their creative input. They played their roles and now the show is about to be canceled. End of story.

-Eric

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[BodhiCat]

When did Janis Ian get old? I thought she was singing songs about being 17 and now she looks like a grandmother with grey hair. Wha happened???

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[jawtheshark]

I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away.

Ever considered that it could be the only way to be published big time? For them it's the choice between "A chance to make it big time" and "Would you like fries with that?"

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[TopShelf]

Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

That's the problem, most artists have no business sense and thus get fleeced. My wife was watching Biography a couple weeks ago and it talked about Dolly Parton, who is at the opposite end of that scale. At one time, Elvis Presley's representatives called her and said that Elvis wanted to record one of her songs ("I Will Always Love You"), with the condition that he be able to purchase half the publishing rights to the song as part of the deal. She refused, as she didn't want to give that up, even for someone of Elvis' stature.

Whitney Houston recorded the song years later for the Bodyguard soundtrack, and Parton made millions in royalties as a result.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Solomon Grundy]

In the book "This Business of Music", by M. William Krasilovsky, there is a very poignant flowchart/diagram. In this diagram, it shows in a nutshell how music goes from the artist to the consumer/fan. The bottleneck within this diagram was, not surprisingly, the distribution channels - where the music goes from the manufacturer to the stores/wholesellers. The major distribution chains, at least within the US, are essentially owned and operated by the major music companies. That is the real reason the RIAA and record companies are so concerned, because a large portion of the markup between the artist to the consumer falls in the distribution chain. Therefore, whoever controls the distribution of music essentially controls the elasticity of supply/demand and, therefore, can potentially move pricing. In addition, and to paraphrase from memory, when Radio was first developed, the music industry was concerned that allowing people to listen to music for free would destroy the music publishing industry (i.e. the printing and selling of sheet music). Then, the creation of the recordable, blank cassette tape was supposed to destroy the music industry. And so on...There is no argument that either the RIAA or the recording industry can use that will disprove the simple fact that they are ultimately only concerned for their own pocketbooks, not those of the artists themselves.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

Comparing the process of entering into a business partnership of your own volition with purchasing services that are largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life is a ridiculous analogy.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[QuantumG]

It's really not. Musicians want to play music all day. There's an over-abundance of musicians, yet they still wanna get paid. So they go to the government and get laws put in place they introduce artifical scarcity. The exact same thing happens in virtual worlds.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[pilgrim23]

THink of all the many poor starving lawyers who have spent their whole lives specializing in the file sharing extortion paradigm. This deal will put them out of work! Will they be compensated?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[SumoRoach]

"Massive props"?!

So, you can't change the EULA ((I'm assuming, with this broad stroke, you only mean the windows EULA, but either way), but you can choose not to agree to it. And lots of us have. And you can choose not to sign with a huge record label, and many of us have. They're both fringe groups, and both are growing. It's the ones that care that hold out, and they're the ones that make a difference, rather than caving into the RIAA, or to Microsoft.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[IamTheRealMike]

Or, much as I may hate them, the Backstreet Boys, who, after several hugely popular albums, testified that they hadn't ever received a royalty cheque.

Unless I'm mistaken about them, the Backstreet Boys haven't produced anything that would earn them a royalty cheque anyway. You get royalties on things like songs, which they conspicuously didn't write ...

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

It doesn't matter one bit. If the risks are large for a certain potential payout, they must weigh their goals against those risks and make an informed decision. This is called "business". Hundreds of thousands of regular people try it every year and lose everything, make a modest living, or in some cases strike it rich. If they want to be in the business of big time entertainment, they can make the decision to take the necessary risks.

It is entirely on them if they choose to take on huge risks in the pursuit of huge payouts, and it is nobody else's fault if those payouts do not materialize. Nobody is guaranteed the right to become rich, only the freedom to try. They under no obligation to take this path in their lives.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[penguin_mafia]

I just email RIAA about this I will report back if the give me an answer. Though all I found on there was an email to there webmaster.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[LordSnooty]

Most actors get paid royalties if their work is aired again, or released on DVD. So why is it different for the Backstreet Boys? Is it just because you don't like their schtick?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Firehed]

I hate them as much as you do and don't deny that they're talentless pretty-boys, but that didn't stop them from becoming the epitome of bad music in America. No matter how much your product sucks, you're still supposed to get paid if people buy it.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[dsgitl]

I remember learning the truth about all of this in my mass media class in high school. The points system on album sales is convoluted and frustrating for artists, be they homely or beauty queens.

We went over this when I was 17.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's the problem, most artists have no business sense and thus get fleeced. My wife was watching Biography a couple weeks ago and it talked about Dolly Parton...

Things have changed a lot since Dolly had no reputation and no audience. For one, basically all the radio stations weren't owned by a single corporation. Second, the RIAA members had not consolidated their stranglehold on all major distribution channels. Right now the normal artist's main goal is to be heard. They want everyone to hear their music because they are an artist first and a businessman second. Very few people go into music because they think it is a path to wealth. Given the choice between possibly reaching a large audience, or being specifically stopped from reaching a large audience by a large cartel repeatedly convicted of collaborating to abuse their consolidated position, many choose the former. If they don't they will never sell a CD in a major store or be heard on the radio and most people will never, ever hear of them.

Sure there are counter examples of those few independent artists that won out against all odds, but they are the rare exceptions. Copyright law was designed to benefit artists and encourage them to make more works. It has been abused and morphed by powerful corporations so that it instead is a tool to control art and make sure artists in general make no money off their art. If copyright was abolished entirely it would be a boon to the average recording artist, since the RIAA would have no motivation to stop their distribution and they could still make money the way almost all of them do now, concerts and merchandise.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[bigtimepie]

I wager they won't see the money... That's because all those artists are probably in debt to the major labels still for studio costs, merchandising, promotion costs, etc.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[It'sYerMam]

The point being made is that there simply is no "modest living" option. It's either "sign your soul away and hit it big" or "slum it, bitch." I'm not saying what I think here, but you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding people.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

Well, then, I don't really understand how your point is relevant to what I brought up. Even if that's true, the answer is, simply "go do something else with your life", which many people who could have pressed artistic careers also do.

If it's all or nothing, it's still a choice they have to make, and if they make the wrong choice, the onus is still on them.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[jawtheshark]

They under no obligation to take this path in their lives.

Of course not, but they are musicians... For many of them this is not "business", but they are in it for the art. Many artists would kill to get a chance to live of their art to be able to dedicate all their time to music. To many of them, only a contract with a label could provide this to them.

Many artists choose not to take this path, and will continue to play music in their spare time. You won't find their songs in record shops tough. They have a day job to live and music becomes a hobby.

I'm not saying that all of this is right or wrong, I'm just saying that the only way of making it big time is to sign a contract with a label and accept their terms and conditions. Any other way puts you into obscurity.

I'm not a musician. I'd have no feeling for music whatsoever: people would kick me out if I even started to hum a song along, so probably I don't understand how musicians tick. All of what I might say is probably an uninformed guess. Feel free to point me out to a musician that made it big time without a label.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Doc Ruby]

Nothing. Artists already are entitled to little from sales and royalties, after signing bad contracts with dishonest brokers. The labels and royalty agencies (BMI, ASCAP, a few tiny ones) just steal the income most of the time, while keeping the books, too. I expect that they will add a "bootlegger recovery fee" to their contracts and payments, so artists will wind up making less. And lawyers will make much more.

The $100M from Kazaa will come from their new Skype income. But $100M goes fast in lawyerland. The lawyers will demand more, probably contriving some abuse by Skype to do it. That will attach these lawyers to the VoIP industry, doing their best to turn it into the cesspool they've made of the music business.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[houghi]

Right. No royalties for actors.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[vertinox]

Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away. If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.

You are correct, but you forgot to mention one thing...

American musicians have no real alternatives to the RIAA!

Sure there are many Indie labels out there (such as my own), but we don't have the ability to put our CDs in walmart, put music videos on TV, and send our musicans on tours that cost ten's of thousands of dollars (have you ever looked into the logistics of having a road crew and a tour bus... it ain't cheap)

I will have to admit, if it weren't for the internet I wouldn't be able to do what I do today with promotion, sales, and distribution but we aren't making enough money to quit our day jobs.

So unless you have enough money to make your own label, an underground musician won't be able to compete with the RIAA's music.... Unless of course you don't mind doing it for free and the love of the music (which many do).

On the other hand... European major labels tend to be a bit more diverse and fair to their musicians.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[supabeast!]

"The record companies have all the power; They have nothing to lose and will tell you that they'll 'just sign someone else'."

The record companies DON'T have all the power. They only have power over artists who don't want to do the hard work, who don't want to promote themselves, who don't want to produce their own music, and who just want someone else to do all the hard stuff so that they can try to get lucky and make it big. Ani DiFranco proved this when she decided to do some hard work, not deal with the record companies, and do everything herself. It took her nearly a decade and several album releases to pick up steam, but she's become tremendously successful, and outlasted a lot of the record industry's big artists who have come and gone in the same time period. If more musicians were like her, and weren't willing to gamble everything away on the chance that a record company might be able to make them rich and famous overnight, those heinous record deals would go away pretty quickly.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[kidtwist]

That's Janis Ian's point. She's saying the business model that RIAA espouses is bad for the artist, and that the RIAA's policy of preventing free downloads is also bad for (most) artists. Her mentioning of owing the record labels money is just an example of why performers shouldn't blindly sign with major record labels, and assume that they and the RIAA is on their side. If I were ripped off by someone I wouldn't sit back quietly and think, "well, I should have looked over the paperwork more carefully. I should have done more research." Those things are true but I'd shout to the world that I made a bad deal and hope that others learn from my mistakes and that the people who ripped me off aren't able to keep profiting that way.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Better not say that too loud. The RIAA is hungry.

Good, I hope they get him to turn down the music so he isn't song sharing to the whole block.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Znork]

"Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away"

Oh, bull, the entire structure of IP legislation is aimed squarely at protecting publishers from competition. Those 'rights' are monopoly protection laws that in themselves create the market failure. The effect being, the rights creating the media concentration which effectively marginalizes any non-signer.

The artists are effectively mugged of their right to compete on a fair market; the inequality of resources are an effect of legislation, not an inherent nature in the market.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[deviceb]

Yes the ARTISTS will continue making music & being hungry while the money fuels the shti music that continues to rob american youth of any real culture.

i mean... does anybody still use kazza? thats so 5 years ago..

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who? Ani DiFranco? Never 'eard of her...

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[lymond01]

It seems to me that CDs are just the advertising for the concerts. The RIAA and the labels pay quite a bit of money to put your name out, market your image, distribute your CD. It's up to you, as the artist, to go out there and use that advertising to get people to show up at your concerts.

This is why smaller artists can benefit hugely from internet music sites - essentially free advertising.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[ronocdh]

When you are small fry you have the choice of signing what the record company offer, or nothing. Sure you can go somewhere else, but that other label is just has harsh.

How can you say "or nothing"? I'm pretty sure that I can record a CD, burn it, and sell it, all without involving any major corporation. Hell, why even burn it? Why not just post it on my own webspace? I'm not sure about Apple distribution agreements, but perhaps you could get it posted on the iTunes Music Store, at minimal cost to you (we've all heard Apple makes about a penny or two profit per song, and most of the rest goes to the label, which in this case would be you).

Or maybe it's time for a whole new economic model. Let's be honest: why do artists want to get signed? They want to do it because it feels like a finish line. Get signed, get money, done. Of course the labels are ruthless, because their job is to tantamount to panhandling: they are trying to take the consumer's money by selling something on good faith. Who knows whether the CD you're about to buy in Tower sucks? You sure as hell can't download it for free to decide for yourself--you must do the honorable thing and take the plunge, because that's what keeps our culturemachine rolling, right?

Let's just consider a different way of doing things. What if I were to post my self-recorded, self-produced CD online, and charge nothing for it? I have a dayjob--I'm not throwing my life out the window or putting myself in financial jeopardy, doing what I love in my free time and sharing it. I could put a PayPal link on my site, and people who really enjoyed my work would pay me. Honestly, I've heard songs that I would pay never to hear again (an insurance policy of some kind). I also own CDs for which I'd've paid the artist upwards of $100, if I had had a way to do it directly.

In our ardently capitalistic market, money is no longer used to promote future growth. Money is a throwaway commodity, and we buy things that are designed not to last. Record companies want their artists to be forgettable--no one's looking to sign the next Beatles, because such a phenomenon has become unthinkable to our market, meaning the bar is low. So how about a system where the consumer and the artist are actively considering the allocation of money toward the future. "I want more of this. Yes. I'll pour money into this, because this guy understands." The artist has to earn my money, rather than the label.

We aren't liberal enough with our money in this culture. Why is it impolite, nay, taboo, to pay someone a quarter for a really funny joke? A dollar? Twenty? We aren't paying for satisfaction any longer, we're paying out of guilt because we don't feel like understanding. We'd rather pay than think.

Maybe I should start putting a PayPal link in my sig. =D

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[ThePhilips]

Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

Then probably I guess you never tried to record, publish and promote your own album. You can pick lots of funny information by yourself.

There is no other word for that business but "mafia". They are middle man, standing between creators and fans. They rob artists of what they create - under guise of helping them with all the bureaucracy and formalities (All the bureaucracy and formalities help nobody else but recording companies - and quite questionable why it is there in first place). Then they force DRMs on consumers and restrictive contracts on broadcasters makeing sure that you get the work of artist only from them and only on condition they have set.

FYI.

Have you ever wondered by some crap like "Britney Spears"/etc make so high in hit lists? I asked that question to DJ of one german FM radio I met in pub. (Well, Okay, I asked why they have for every hour of good new music they 12 hours of old trash. Do you start guessing how the questions relate?) Right, RIAA (or its german face Sony BMG) sets in (very long) contract conditions on programming of FM stations with restriction like: "two new promoted songs cannot be aired in the same hour", "new promoted song has to be separated at least by 5(?) minutes from any other song", "you can't air more than 4 news songs per hour", "you can't air new or promoted song next to another promoted or new song respectively." I can't tell the restrictions precisely. But I hope you get the spirit of the conditions boradcaster have to deal with.

The goal of such silly conditions to make sure that some stupid talentless voiceless signer(in) would catch your attention. No way you would get away from that promoted song: first they assault your brain with 100 times repeated hit of 80s and then BA-BAM! new song. No way human brain (exhausted by the commercials and old crap before) would manage to reject the new song. The content of the song is irrelevant - it just has to be new/different.

Conditions in the contract make sure that song would stand out on the dull background. And here you have it: some talentless voiceless macho gets on top of hit lists, while probaly having only sex appeal.

Often, they just approach young performer with offer "Do you wanna us to make you the star???" Who of beginners in his/her right ming would turn down such offer.

Are artists under any obligation to sign contracts with them? Absolutely not.

Step by step.

1. Renting recording studio is very expensive. Very.

2. Hiring professional sound editor is very very expensive. You can edit by yourself - but quality would be not sufficient for most broadcasters.

3. Okay, we pulled the bills for recording the album. What's next? Right, "Music" == "CD". Publishing. (Oh, crap, we forgot covers! - the work of cover designed is very expensive.) How mush CDs do you want? 100'000 - that would be 0.25 per disk. You can't pull that? - Okay you can make 1000 disks for $1-2.50 each.

4. Suppose we made it. Now we want to sell it. How would we do that? We contact the retailers. What they say us? - "Pay us money. People do not know you. The sales would be very slow. Etc." Right, to start selling we have to pay the bills of retailers so they would manage to keep your album on the shelfs.

5. How would we make people buy it? We need FM promotion. We come to FM stations: they wanna money since the only way they would accept your work as if it was commercial. (That's right, airing songs (which help promote radio) on behalf of commercials. That's why you need one good catching song - and short song in your album.)

I can go on, but I hope you got the spirit. I intentionally omitted steps like buying musical equipment and finding/renting room for trainings. But you can imaging that all that requires time and money. Lots of them.

And now enter recording compani

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[It'sYerMam]

Sure, but you can't blame someone with musical talent for wanting to make music as a career. You can, however, blame the industry for screwing them over when they try to do so.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Small artist do get hurt by free downloads. Many of them spend their entire savings and borrow money from family and friends so that they don't have to deal with the record companies.
They count on cd sales, along with touring, to pay back that dept and hopefully build up a base of fans that will support future art by them.
Free downloads and burned cds does build the base, but if they can't afford to go into the studio again, that doesn't really help much.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away. If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.

Lets suppose for a moment that you're right. The artists deserve to be shafted because they had the unmitigated gall to sign a contract with the companies that have a stranglehold on the music business. If that's the case, them I'm not ripping off an artist when I download copyrighted music without permission. So tell your hero music businesses to stop claiming that I am. Tell them to go out and talk about the fact that a fifteen year old kid is taking fifty cents off the bottom line of a company that made millions last year, so they have to sue his parents for their entire life savings. Put that in their TV ads and propoganda commercials.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[lixee]

Or in the words of Ani DiFranco: "Capitalism is the devil's wet dream".

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[1u3hr]

How much will Kazaa actually pay? Do they even have $100 million? $1 million? They probably stripped any assets fropm the company months ago and will just let it go bankrupt.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

You're being intentionally ignorant and I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it. If they have a problem with the terms of the contract offered by "the industry" they can choose self-employment or a different profession. Millions of Americans strike it out on their own. It's hard work, and a huge risk. You're basically arguing that it's unfair that artists should have to work in the same situation, and that they should somehow be guaranteed fame and riches merely by signing with the RIAA. This is a ludicrous position, and I won't waste my time listening to it anymore. It's also a direct insult to the many people who HAVE started their own businesses and have been successful.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[1u3hr]

t's really not. Musicians want to play music all day. There's an over-abundance of musicians, yet they still wanna get paid. So they go to the government and get laws put in place they introduce artifical scarcity. The exact same thing happens in virtual worlds.

If the govt was making laws to help musicians, they'd ban recorded music from entertainment venues. No jukeboxes, no DJs, no Muzak, no karaoke, no lip-synching. If you wanted music, you'd have to pay someone to perform.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[clayanderson]

Yep. And many smaller artists are now doing quite well independently thanks to self-promotion on the web, and sites like MySpace. Major labels and the RIAA are becoming less and less of a necessary evil for them to make a decent living.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[SatanClauz]

she's one righteous babe :)

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Mister Whirly]

"I know theres a lot of artists, but does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?"

Typically with a "big ticket" performer the artist can expect to see 8%-12% of the net profit. Anything over 10% and you are a superstar. Bands would see about the same and have to split it between all members. So if you have a record that has a profit of 5 million (profit, not gross - promotions, advertising, travel expenses, etc all must be paid before it is considered "profit")you would be luck to get about half a million. After taxes, I'm guestimating you would be looking at the neighboorhood of 375,000 or maybe less. Artists that don't sell gold or platinum usually end up owing record companies money - unless they were really conscious about keeping costs down at every level. At a typical major record label you would have about 1 band that makes money for every 20-25 bands that don't.

So some rock stars are right when they claim it isn't easy being a rock star...Well, at least it ins't easy to make a lot of money for a sustained time as a rock star, won't comment on the lifestyle.....

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[ArghBlarg]

Agreed. As this site shows, artists may actually make slightly less per song on iTunes, the 'legal, moral' music download service, than if they sell a physical CD. Considering there's no CD case, physical disc, jacket art, or 'shrinkage' built into the price, it's pretty obvious that the big record companies (and Apple.. yes, beloved Apple) are trying to propagate the same rapacious terms forward into the new online music distribution model.

Say no to 'legal' download services like iTunes, Napster and this new Kazaa, unless they can prove that artists get substantially larger cuts of sales. There are lots of other distro models which give much bigger cuts, like cdbaby.com.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Alexandra Erenhart]

But it actually made sense to me.... it reminded me of my old UO days :P

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Mister Whirly]

Promotions, advertising, and connections are what sells most albums, not ideals. You could be making the greatest music in the world, and if nobody knows about it, it doesn't matter. How do you think the Brittney Spears and Ashlee Simpsons and every boy band ever sells so many damn records? Is it the music? Hell no, its the first 3 things above...

I've also advocated the Paypal links directly to artists before and think it is a great idea. Then everyone could basically download music guilt-free - give directly to the artist. Unfortunately there is already some massive machinery in place (the RIAA) that will do and spend everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

The term is 'work for hire' and RIAA members attempted to force the stipulation into the contracts of all recording artist. Yes, the Great Protector of Artists tried to steal the rights to recorded works from artists. Still hooked on the KoolAid?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Mister Whirly]

You are right on target with this point. That is pretty much the way the music industry is run. Anyone who thinks it is "easy" to put out a hit record without playing the "music game" should put their money where their mouth is. Christ, even the Clash were on a major label...

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's odd, but it was none other than Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.

You can find some references here:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?articl e_id=1263 - Don Henley of the Eagles says "Just as you have so insightfully observed, Mr. Chairman, it is as though you have paid off your mortgage and the bank still owns your house." (para 11)

And who was the chairman on April 3, 2001 of the Senate Judiciary Committee? You can find that one yourself.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

they'll sign anything, including the part about the label owning the copyright to their songs.

In the '50s, US copyright law was changed to state that the artists are ""for hire" and the label owns the copyrights to all the songs, anyway.

More and more bands are starting their own labels, just so they won't lose their copyrights.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[ronocdh]

This is changeable in a single generation--and keep in mind, the kids on our heels are nerdier than we are, and they may flat out demand a digital standard. As for the economic liberation of a direct-pay system, that necessitates some (re)education, but that, too, is within our grasp. The physical infrastructure for delivery of intellectual works is gone (okay, still watching the net neutrality stuff!): no more retail stores, warehouses, shipping, or--best of all--suits. Just the artist and the consumer, together at last, tied to one another by some zooming electrons.

Also, keep in mind that the artist would be getting about 97% of the payments made directly; depending on the pay scheme with the major labels, an artist could make but a fraction of the old sales figures and still receive the same amount of pay. Now that's a revolution.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[MerrickStar]

You do realize that the RIAA is a member-based organization, and they (technically) can't stop an individual artist, or an artist not signed to one of their member lables from taking up the action you suggest?
For that matter, they also have a member list so if you really wanted, you could keep track of all those and organize a boycott of just those lables. Not to say it would be effective, or for that matter, an easy list to recall each time you pop off to the record store, but still technically possible.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[evil_Tak]

There are plenty of musicians who make modest livings playing locally, self-promoting, doing small album releases, etc. It's not necessary to play the RIAA lottery to be a commercial musician.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument that if the government was making laws to help musicians would necessarily entail banning recorded music from entertainment venues suffers from some logical fallacies. It is true that banning recorded music would certainly create a demand for live performers, but just because the government has not done this does not mean musicians are not seeking government assistance to earn a living.

The US government has passed many laws in its history to help many different kinds of workers. Under the guise of promoting cleaner air and in the name of environmental protection, the recent ethanol gas law was passed and is now being enforced thus directly benefitting farmers who provide the ethanol. I'm not saying ethanol gas isn't cleaner and that the air doesn't benefit because of it, but the primary lobbyists for the gas tax were... drum roll please... farmers!

The point? The government did not ban all automobiles that did not run on vegetable oil. And the government certainly did not pass a law that stated that all cars must be driven by a hired driver who must also be a farmer, even though that would certainly create a high demand for farmers!!!

So just because something is not happening to an extreme degree does not mean that something is not happening at all. Farmers will continue to lobby the government for more subsidies and laws for their own job security just as musicians (and steel workers, wal-mart employees, teachers, etc.) will continue to seek legislation to improve their situation.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[zstlaw]

Such a strong opinion for someone with little experience in the music business.

As a former musician with professional musician friends I can say that contracts in the music industry are uniformly designed to screw the artist. Even if you get a "good contract" the business adds fees and "hides profits" and very often the artist is left bankrupt after a break-out album. When media companies own the distribution channels, manufacturing facilities, studios, radio stations, etc. You get gouged again and again. Your contract with the record company may be good, but how can you confirm their "profits", you usually get a fraction AFTER expenses and wow the most successful albums seem to rack up a lot more expenses.

Lets say your album sold a few million copies? The recording studio they had you go in for additional tracks runs 20k a day, and that mixing studio was 100k. And then they spent 500k on advertising to wholly owned subsidiaries. And it costs them 10 dollars to print each disk because we sent so many copies to radio stations. The list goes on and on. And since the company can show that they did spend that money, you have an almost impossible case showing that their profits should be higher.

Basically record corporation routinely funnel profits into subsidiaries. You can try to go after the corporation, but the case drags out for years, and without royalty checks how are you going to pay for your lawyers?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[SloppyElvis]

What you say is true, but to quote Hollywood's "The Right Stuff"...

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers"

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

I have a magical series of evocative steps you can perform to create a ward against this scenario:

Step #1: Don't sign contracts you don't understand.

Step #2: (Optional) Raise your middle figure and wave it in a figure eight pattern at the object of scorn.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[xtracto]

What I have never understood is, why does this people continue with their record company once they have been screwed?

I mean, I know they must sign some contract to make an specific number of CD's. But after that, they will have the fame and fortune that the record corporation can yield, Why not just quit and continue their careers independently?

If that artist girl on somebody else comment is so pissed off of being screwed why didnt she just finishes with the company and starts?,

Maybe someone with more music industry knowledge can clarify that to me as I do not know if there are usually clausules in the contracts that states that you will be forever and ever with certain company (you hear often that bands change companies). The only thing they must do is finish their contract (I believe it is usually for a number of CDs in a period of time).

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[miskatonic alumnus]

To use your own argument: nobody is guaranteed the right to a modern living. What about the destitute millions across the globe who live without electricity, clean water, and so on. Right here in the good ol' U.S. there are plenty of homeless people. Electricity is no more a necessity than a record contract.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

Oh, and before I forget, if you're having trouble finding a law firm that would be willing to work a good case for a percentage of expected damages, try this magical ceremony: flip over a phone book.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Wow.

You just said in 4.5 paragraphs what I've been struggling to wrap my head around for quite some time. I've taken notice that 'money' doesn't seem to be doing what it should be doing, but I could never come up with a convincing argument as to why that was so.. and you just gave me more than one.

Very nice. Mods, make with the mod points.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[dodobh]

How were they supposed to distribute without the Internet? Keep in mind that the Internet as a major distribution medium for media really took off after broadband came in.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[shark72]

"To quote Janis Ian:"

Yes, she does get quoted a lot, since she wrote that essay. Many Slashdotters might not have even heard of her if she hadn't written it. She doesn't mind her stuff being downloaded (I wouldn't either, if I were her, since apparently she's never made any money from record sales, ever). She signed a bad contract when she was a teenager, more than 30 years ago.

Yet lots of musicians do make money in the record industry. Some make a little. A few make a lot. Some are for illegal downloading. Others are against it. Many have foregone the record label route and put their own stuff up for free, or for a charge. Everybody has a different story.

I think the best, and most honest, reason to use P2P to get your music is because you'd simply get something for free rather than pay for it. It's human nature, but apparently many people have a hard time simply acknowledging that they'd like to save money, and that they aren't particularly concerned with the rights of rightsholders.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think that for many Slashdotters, the thought process goes like this:

1. Janice "who's she" Ian doesn't like record companies and doesn't mind if people download her stuff.
2. Therefore, there are probably more artists who feel the same way -- maybe even most of them do.
3. Thus, I am absolved of any moral issues with pirating music.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[shark72]

"They were paid to play roles, not for their creative input. They played their roles and now the show is about to be canceled. End of story."

Well said. I should just point out that the composers and songwriters who wrote much of their stuff did receive royalties. If you are simply a performer, and not the person who actually wrote the words or the music, you will likely be paid less. Composers and songwriters have minimum royalties (called mechanicals) set by law; if you're just a performer, you don't have those protections.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[klingens]

Kazaa is owned by Sharman Networks, based in Australia and some pacific island.
Skype is owned by ebay.

Neither of those companies share any money with each other. Kazaa was originally programmed by the same people as skype. When the kazaa court troubles began, those programmers soldl azaa for a very small sum to Sharman Networks.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

Your entire argument is a straw man. We're not talking about global poverty and we're not talking about the electrical grid. If you can't stay on topic, don't post.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[miskatonic alumnus]

If the risks are large for a certain potential payout, they must weigh their goals against those risks and make an informed decision. This is called "business".

Which is all well and good, except for one thing. Where do people learn their legal expertise, business acumen, and critical thinking skills? After lurking on /. for quite some time, it appears that many here support capitalism and the "free market". However, one of the basic tenets of capitalism is that the people are informed. And there's the rub. People are NOT informed. Big business and government have an interest in keeping people uninformed --- that way we have to rely on them for everything. We pay taxes to support a public education system that fails to teach children critical thinking or any practical life skills (like how to balance a checkbook, how to do your own taxes, how to run your own business, or even how to research doing these things). Hell, the school system barely teaches them basic math and literacy. And when the young adult leaves school and enters the big ol' world, they are all of the sudden supposed to hit the ground running and make informed logical business decisions?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Doc Ruby]

True - thanks for correcting my conflation of those two parallel products into one company.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[miskatonic alumnus]

Whatever. You said electricity was a basic need, and by extension, so is modern living. I refuted that by saying that modern living is no more a necessity or right than entering into a record contract. I didn't change the topic, as I responded to your argument.

If you can't stay on topic, don't post.

Try and keep me from posting, jackass.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

No, you didn't, and if you'd have bothered to read the entire thread instead of trying to jump into the middle of it, you'd realize that.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[weenie510]

So how about a system where the consumer and the artist are actively considering the allocation of money toward the future. "I want more of this. Yes. I'll pour money into this, because this guy understands." The artist has to earn my money, rather than the label.

http://www.artistshare.com/

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

That's a whole other problem and a whole other discussion. If entire generations of people are being raised to be ignorant so that they cannot function as anything more than monetary funnels, then it behooves moral people to stand up for them and to help educate them against the harm that immoral people like the cartels inflict. I'm doing that by telling them one of the most basic things you must know about any business you ever conduct with anyone in any situtation:

Don't sign anything you don't understand.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Ugh... sickening to think of it like that but you're probably right. They'll call it a 'settlement charge'. The bill will look like this:

Settlement amount: $100 million
- Legal costs: $12 million
- Administrative costs: $90 million

You owe us $2 million, sucker.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[LunaticTippy]

The label might improve terms, make promises that they'll promote your next album, claim that you're about to go platinum if you stay with it, things like that. Nobody likes to throw away a chance to make millions, even if they've been screwed already.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you mod me troll, noob, or other, here is where I'm coming from:

- am currently in a band
- Drummer has 3 records out under diff. band, don't know label. Several tracks from one of thier albums, shipped on 40~ Mill. Windows cd's (YES. WINDOWS INSTALLATION CD's). Did he get a measly .01% of those sales? No, but I don't know terms between him and label, label and MS. Is it his fault? Again, I don't know terms. In his opinion, he was not aware that such a thing was going to occur, and as such was not compensated for it.
- Guitarist was the former Road Manager for a band got pulled onto the current Family Values Tour. If I gave the name, odds are you've heard of them either on tour, radio, or TV. He knows fair amount about industry as he did their first tour after they got signed and released first album. Resigned from that as he wanted to back to school, start own band/music.

What I have learned from thier experiences is this. The MAJORITY of RECORD labels out thier have contracts to screw you. They are either subsidiaries of, or under contracts with the 3 or 4 Major Record labels, and as such, are bound by contracts are that heavily intwined with legal jargon and twisting terminology. Once you sign with them, regardless of whether you know the contract or not, YOU do not know the contract they have with the Top Label and as such, what terms you are actually signing to (see music on Windows CD's above). Independent labels, albeit on the rise, are better, but still hold the same business model as the Major Labels. They ALL view the CD as the end all product where they get paid. This is only starting to change slightly in the music industry with regard to Digital downloads and advertising online. Most bands will make money off of live shows, sponsors, and merch. THAT is where 99% of bands will make their fortune*, if that.

Now, this is just me/band speaking, but our goal is to
a: play music we enjoy, others enjoy
b: get paid for it

That is the order of OUR priorities with regard to getting signed. We've already spoken with label reps, and figure after the mastered demo, and a few live performance tweaks, we'll be getting label offers. As we have set music before money, when a contract will be offered to us, if the distribution and licensing rights to the songs aren't to our liking, we walk. We've decided on that up front. We all have plenty of other oppurtunities in place right now that we can go on making music as a hobby and travel here there to play and get paid. We'd PREFER to get paid more for traveling furthur and playing all over, but not at the cost of licensing and distribution of the music. As such, our options will probably limited as far as what labels might work with us.

Am I going to go cry over a beer about it if we don't get signed? No. I'm also not gonna bitch about and point out other peoples misfortunes with regard to being taken advantage of by the cartel that is the music industry. We're going to try and change it, if ever so little, on OUR TERMS!!!

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[LunaticTippy]

Maybe I need more coffee, but how does step #1 protect against bogus inflated numbers that enrich wholly owned subsidiaries?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[miskatonic alumnus]

Don't sign anything you don't understand.

Nice advice. Too bad it's impractical. Out of the hundred or so million federal tax returns yearly submitted to the IRS, all requiring signatures, how many filers do you estimate understand what they are signing?

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[MasterOfMagic]

This is a wonderful idea. While slightly off-topic, there is a similar idea for computer games and software called The Scratchware Manifesto.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

That would fall under the "things you don't understand" part of the ceremony.

If you don't understand accounting, don't take accounting information as evidence for a claim.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

Again, you're getting into unrelated arguments. Not only is what the IRS makes you do completely irrelevant to what you choose to do with the RIAA, when you sign your tax return, you're not entering into a relationship, you're signing an affirmation that you have done the best you can be reasonably expected to do to provide correct and complete information.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[QRDeNameland]

For one, basically all the radio stations weren't owned by a single corporation. Second, the RIAA members had not consolidated their stranglehold on all major distribution channels. Right now the normal artist's main goal is to be heard.

Thanks for being the first one on this thread to point this out. I could almost buy the "lazy artists who are too stupid/fearful/risk-averse/whatever to strike out on their own" argument if the cartels didn't control the basic infrastructure where music reaches listeners' ears. The internet (and more ubiquitous broadband) is changing that, but it's only been maybe five years or so that this technology to do so has existed and the evolution of an alternate infrastructure has been slow in coming.

It easy to say that striking out as an independent artist is no different than starting your own business, but the reality is that the music business as it exists today is not a level playing field. As long as the average Joe or Joan doesn't have access to the same essential business infrastructure as any other business, then you are talking about a high barrier-to-entry business. Just as no single entrepreneur is going to start his own automobile or pharmaceutical company, it is similarly difficult for an artist break out independently at such a disadvantage to the cartels.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[LiquidAsphalt]

I didn't even read everything what you wrote, but people are doing it for the money. We all know if you sign with a label you'll be closer than the rest of us in becoming a millionaire. When buring your own CD or getting yourself on iTunes makes you a millionaire overnight, artists will then switch. In order to fight the RIAA, boycott their music (not easy, includes not buying / listning to the radio, mtv, or buying any CDs.) Once a few people make it big doing it the independant way, only then will the record companies have to succomb to the freedom of music.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[miskatonic alumnus]

How can it be an unrelated argument? Did you or did you not say, as a complete sentence, "Don't sign anything you don't understand."? Do you hold by that statement in general, or only with regard to contracts with record labels? My point is that that advice is inappropriate in either case, since contracts (as well as the U.S. tax code, and plenty of other examples) are written in obfuscated language, whose proper decipherment requires an expert trained in reading such documents and an understanding of the law, and whose services cost money that many cannot afford to pay. Furthermore, even if you can afford their services, you have to trust that they actually understand the document and the law, and aren't deceiving you. In a nutshell, if you personally don't understand a document requiring your signature --- whether voluntary (a contract) or mandated (tax return) --- you are at the mercy of others.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, they owe large amounts of money to the label, no?

Re the ongoing discussion:
I think an issue here is that the labels are being dishonest with the artists - they say all this is just standard boilerplate, and who's going to read the contract to find out? Everyone knows that artists make it big sometimes, right? I think before a few years ago, very few people knew how much the artists were being screwed. Given that, what's the incentive to get a lawyer?

The artists have a choice, but they are misinformed (with the full knowledge and probably manipulation of the label), and cannot understand the risks and rewards of it.

Legal? Yes. Smart of the artist? No. Fair? No.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

If you can find me one person who doesn't understand the concept of telling the truth to the best of their ability well enough to sign an IRS form, but who is still mentally competent enough to be bound to contracts, I'll give you the point.

The rest of the argument above is sort of silly. I don't see how it's anybody's fault that some people can't afford certain services. You may argue that writing contracts in an obfuscated manner, knowing that many people won't or can't bring lawyers, is immoral, but I've never disputed that the cartels are immoral, only that it's not their fault when people shoot themselves in the foot doing business with them.

Also, if you don't hire a trustworthy lawyer that represents your best interest, that's the way things go. Sometimes I buy products that break prematurely. I pay for services that are sometimes inferior. That's the way the world works. People have to, because of human nature and imperfection, occasionally deal with adversity. I may offer condolences to an artist in that situation, but that's just the way things go.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[toad3k]

Artist's take on piracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9KcVFN7qlc

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[onehalf]

"You'll PAY to know what you really think."
- J.R. "BoB" Dobbs

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[10101001 10101001]

Nobody is guaranteed the right to make money, only the freedom to attempt it.

It's funny you say that. That's a primary argument on why copyright shouldn't exist.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[10101001 10101001]

Copyright law was designed to benefit artists and encourage them to make more works.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Now, the Constitutional clause that allows copyright law to exist may have been with the intent to benefit artists and encourage them to make more works (really the latter, but the former was an accepted side-effect), but copyright law itself has never been designed to benefit artists. This may seem contradictory, but it is the case that publishing houses have existed since even before the US existed. In reality, copyright gives only the most marginal of benefits to the artist while giving publishers enormous benefit. As a result, publishing houses have gained enormous power compared to authors and have generally been able to dictate terms to them as a de facto cartel.

There's only two real motivation publishing houses have to keeping copyright around: preventing their competitors from printing their works and keeping the average person from distributing copies. For the most part, even without copyright each member of the cartel would likely avoid printing a competitors material to avoid their own material being printed as quid pro quo. Of course in the long term, enough treachery would make it an uneasy alliance, but most of the big players would still manage to hang around. On the other hand, with the average person distributing, at some point people would realize they no longer need the publishing houses at all. With something as cheap as a home press or, finally, the internet they'd have a major threat against them as their whole industry could be usurped.

It has been abused and morphed by powerful corporations so that it instead is a tool to control art and make sure artists in general make no money off their art.

Except I'd argue that it wasn't so much an abuse as a natural consequence of what copyright is. Authors weren't equipped, at least until very modern times, to distribute their works around the world. And even if they were, there would still be a vested interesting in having a single location to push their content (youtube, google video). Invariable, there will be some publisher involved and the publish, as the middle-man for almost all works, will grow in power over the many authors. So, copyright law and the clause that allows it were badly designed. Copyright law can't benefit authors like it is supposed to, so the promotion of arts and sciences is hindered more than it would be under a correctly designed system. Of course, that would mean altering the Constitution. But first one would have to figure out how to design such a system properly to fulfill the original intentions.

If copyright was abolished entirely it would be a boon to the average recording artist, since the RIAA would have no motivation to stop their distribution and they could still make money the way almost all of them do now, concerts and merchandise.

It would probably be a boon in the long term, but I don't think the RIAA's involvement would have much to do with it.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Now, the Constitutional clause that allows copyright law to exist may have been with the intent to benefit artists and encourage them to make more works (really the latter, but the former was an accepted side-effect), but copyright law itself has never been designed to benefit artists. This may seem contradictory, but it is the case that publishing houses have existed since even before the US existed.

It does seem contradictory. The constitutional clause is a law. I think I see where you're coming from though. Yes copyright predated the US and was a mess in Europe which is why it was so specifically limited in the US.

In reality, copyright gives only the most marginal of benefits to the artist while giving publishers enormous benefit.

This depends upon the industry and the application. For example, you can still make an independent video game and gain great monetary benefit distributing it yourself. The problem is when the distribution channels are all owned by the same company or group and who then use that as a bottleneck to be gatekeepers.

There's only two real motivation publishing houses have to keeping copyright around: preventing their competitors from printing their works and keeping the average person from distributing copies.

There is actually a third, artificially restricting the available works. The average large publishing company or film company owns more works that it does not make available than it sells. By making sure these works are unavailable it channels all the buying to a smaller set of works, which has fewer infrastructure and distribution costs. Were copyright abolished a significant number of people would find a number of currently unavailable works to consume.

Authors weren't equipped, at least until very modern times, to distribute their works around the world.

I'd argue the dissemination of demand was more a restriction than of the works themselves. The main thing current distributors bring to the table is advertising.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[jc42]

Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away.

Yeah, they should all be like me. I've never signed one of those recording-company predatory contracts. Who am I? You've probably never heard of me or any of the groups that I'm in, though I've actually been on a number of music albums.

Actually, last week I was playing at a gig, and a fellow came up and told us that he'd just ordered the group's CD online. He'd listened to it on my web site (no clips; just MP3s of all the tracks). Then he decided that he wanted a copy. We told him (with a grin) that he should have waited and bought it from us directly, so he wouldn't have to pay shipping. He shrugged and said that he hadn't known we'd be playing there so soon.

If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.

Yeah, right; your typical starving artist can afford maybe 5-10 minutes of the typical contract-lawyer's time.

These days, any aspiring artist should just stay the hell away from anything that requires signing any contract or dealing with any lawyer. Just put your stuff online, and make a name for yourself. When people start asking you about your CD, you start making one. But if you deal with the companies or the lawyers, they'll own you and everything you create. (And probably your firstborn child and anything s/he creates.)

And pay attention to the "net neutrality" issue. If it goes the wrong way, the telecomm companies will own everything you create. And read your ISP's contract carefully; there's a good chance that they own anything you put on one of their machines. (My web site is on my own machine, and my ISP is speakeasy, who doesn't block ports 25 or 80.)

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[GuyverDH]

"Technically, the artists now owe the RIAA money."

There's probably more truth to this statement than you know...

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oligarchy". Look it up, learn it, love it. The RIAA members act as one. Artists don't have much of a contractual choice in an oligarchical (there's that word again!) market environment. Those contracts provide the wherewithall to acquire items "largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life." Go figure.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[10101001 10101001]

For example, you can still make an independent video game and gain great monetary benefit distributing it yourself.

Yes, and you can still make an independent movie and gain great monetary benefit. Yet Nintendo holds a nice monopoly on producing Gamecube discs. The same with Sony and PS2 discs. The PC realm is much more open, especially with the invention of shareware effectively giving anyone the ability to be a distributor, but there are very few examples of authors manging success even in this market, let alone having much of a foothold. One can look at id as a perfect example of an independent company that did manage to be successful for quite a while, and then it eventually became a much more proprietary company relying on more standard distribution channels, releasing commercial demos instead of shareware (and do realize I'm not trying to rag on id for this; I'm just trying to point out that long standing independent companies tend to go under the wing of publishers precisely because it's the long-term ideal solution to maintaining at least some level of independence while insuring a means to sell your product).

There is actually a third, artificially restricting the available works. The average large publishing company or film company owns more works that it does not make available than it sells. By making sure these works are unavailable it channels all the buying to a smaller set of works, which has fewer infrastructure and distribution costs. Were copyright abolished a significant number of people would find a number of currently unavailable works to consume.

Yes, I forgot this obvious area which was the birth of DiVX. And it well explains the push for DRM and trying to push the idea that software is licensed, not sold. While companies (Disney is a great example) might be able to get away with not selling a product for long spans of time to drive up demand--the whole, "back in the vault", commercials seems like a horrible marketing blunder if people didn't realize that Disney isn't putting them "back in the vault" to protect them from wear but instead to protect from people buying them--there seems to be little sign that people are willing to accept a system where they can never truly own their music, videos, etc. And the format treadmill simply will not work on people, IMHO, because people are becoming more wise to the fact that they're paying multiple times for the same thing without any real added benefit and without any legitimate reason to have to pay again (there's no reason those DVDs shouldn't last for a lifetime).

So, I'm holding out hope that people eventually become wise to the aritifical limitation in marketing. The most humerous part is that the quest to make a smaller market has resulted in places like ebay allowing used game, music, etc collectors to make a killing selling off many legal copies of a work, bit by bit. Perhaps their plans to limit supply are backfiring.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now simply ASSERTING that something is or is not true is a legitimate debate technique? Man... in my day we had to walk uphill to school both ways in the snow with our examples and/data points supporting our positions.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[QuantumG]

Maybe you're not aware that every time you hear music on a jukebox, from a DJ, in a karaoke bar, hell, on hold or in an elevator, someone who runs that business has been required to pay a royalty to a recording artists' association.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[deblau]

I'm pretty sure that I can record a CD, burn it, and sell it, all without involving any major corporation. Hell, why even burn it? Why not just post it on my own webspace?

What if I were to post my self-recorded, self-produced CD online, and charge nothing for it?

Then you'd be doing a lot of things that 'distract from the art', and that many artists would rather pay someone else to do. You know, a lot of people pay someone to do their taxes, mow their yard, buy their groceries, etc ad infinitum. Enter the record labels...

I don't know if you've ever run a business before. I have, and there's a hell of a lot of things that need doing that have nothing to do with 'the product'. I got frustrated a lot, because I'd rather be coding than chasing after a payroll error or looking for health insurance or yelling at the power company. I'm sure a lot of musicians would rather be making music than dealing with the inevitable customer complaints due to some obscure SQL error in the shopping cart database code that they hired some friend of theirs to write who's now on vacation in Tahiti for two weeks. That's why record labels are useful.

Until someone can figure out that problem, there will always be artist demand for outsourcing the niggling details.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Reziac]

What most people don't realise is that Dolly Parton made most of her money as a *songwriter*, not as a singer. Sure, she was top of the C&W charts, and everyone knew her name -- but that's not where the money is; we all know how the RIAA cartel fleeces the artists! But if you own the song, whenever someone else uses it you get paid a fixed royalty no matter what, even before the RIAA takes their cut.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[crashelite]

technically the RIAA did this with out their discression there for they do not owe the RIAA money but since the record lable owns the music they only have to pay the artists when there is a sale... this is a loss and not a sale so the RIAA gets pure profits... but then again most artists are in lawsuits about iTunes and how their record lable still charges them packaging and shipping fee per sale on iTunes

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[HiThere]

Except that the standard contract allows the Music Companies (i.e., the RIAA members, rather than the RIAA itself) to spend money to advertise their works at it's discresion and charge it to the artists, whether they benefit or not. So bet on it, the artists owe money to the companies they signed with (though not to the RIAA as such).

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[TopShelf]

But to extend that analogy of music-as-business-startup, does an entrepreneur expect to get his Widgets on the shelves at WalMart and Target right off the bat? No, he has to build his market and brand reputation through smaller avenues first. Admittedly, the dominance of Clear Channel in radio far outstrips WalMart's retailing share, but the basic idea is similar.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[QRDeNameland]

While what you say is true, it is that difference in dominance that makes the analogy fall apart. (And no, I don't think the starting entrepreneur would expect to get on Wal-Mart's shelves immediately.) Despite Wal-Mart share of retail space, there is still plenty of other alternative retail markets for a business startup to supply, and plenty of opportunity there to thrive. But with the near-total dominance of the RIAA-backed music industry (which is the labels AND the major distributors AND the radio), what alternative outlets does the independent musician have? There's college radio, but it has virtually no reach by comparison, and is regionally fragmented so you'd have the disadvantage of having to market to all of them individually. And now you have the internet, which holds the best hope of breaking the cartels stranglehold, but as yet there are few good ways to market your music to people who've never heard of you.

While the idea may be similar, the difference between Wal-Mart and the RIAA CLear Channel cartel is essentially the same as the difference between a market leader and a monopoly. And that's a BIG difference.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Roody Blashes]

It's always been a legitimate debate technique, you just don't know anything about debate. If the opponent merely makes a claim without defending it with evidence, simply asserting it is unproven is sufficient to discredit it until evidence is offered.

Which is irrelevant here anyway since that's not what just happened here.

Now go away. I have no interest in the juvenile "debate" knowledge slashdotters betray in their chest-thumping displays.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[toddestan]

Comparing the process of entering into a business partnership of your own volition with purchasing services that are largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life is a ridiculous analogy.

While electrical power is certainly nessecary for a modern life, a cell phone* really isn't, and Windows XP certainly is not. So I think his point stands, the artists don't really need to enter a relationship with the record companies, but if they want to get anywhere they pretty much have to, and at their terms.

*I know the parent didn't say cell phones, but I've never seen a residental land line where you had to sign a contract, so I'm assuming he must mean a cell phone.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

Why not just do local or regional. Along with working with Apple. Make the CDs yourself and sell them at fleamarks and local bazaars. Where I live (Tallahassee, FL) there is plenty of places like the Farmers Market on Saturdays and many local bars that will gladly help serve to local artists. Sure you may not sell a million records or get a Grammy or CMA award but if you can sell 1000 CDs you burned at 50 to 75 cents a CD for $7 that's a heck of a lot more than I make in a year and surely most people. America is all about innovation and independence. If you feel that you deserve better than the RIAA then work hard and do everything you can to perpetuate your music.

I'd buy local artist's music if they sold it on CD-R's at the local bazaar if it was good and I know many others who would do the same. In fact there is even a local radio station 88.9 or 89.9 or something that plays only requested songs and a lot of it is works from LOCAL artists. There is more money in "small time" distrubution than people think. If you sound good and know how to market then why go through the RIAA outlets if you could possibly make more money doing it independently. Is fame really worth that cost? I certainly think not.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Mantrid42]

I can see you've never been around artists. For them, its not a choice. Its their passion. They will go to incredibly lengths to produce what they love. Its not a matter of, "Should I be a musician or an accountant?" The true artists absolutely can not be happy unless they are making their art.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Anonymous Coward]

now you can record a cd yourself, sure. if you can afforc several thousand dollars in equipment. i'm counting instruments, guitars and amplifiers in this, but teh chepest decent mixing board will run you about 1500 - 2000, 500 - 1000 for a computer to record with (with the board i have in mind, the mackie onyx, you can input to the computer with firewire, and get each audio track seperate) microphones for a full band, easily 1000, probably much, much more if you want to mic the drums properly, more for cables, mic stands, tuners, a windows license (you do not want to commercially release a cd recorded with software running on pirated windows), recording software (you may be able to do it inlinux with audacity, if linux can read the firewire from the onyx board) etc...

all in all if you want to record your own cd, it will cost you 5000 minimum easily. and that's not even counting putting foam on the walls of your garage to get good accoustics for recording. another 10,000 to get it pressed, (i hope this includes jewel cases and some sort of cd insert)

all of these extra things to focus on which can degrade the quality of your musical output.

or you can sign a contract with a major label, let other people worry about mic-ing your amps properly and get screwed.

so you're saying basically that someone like elvis prestley should have walked away from the contract he was offered instead of getting the deal he had? (elvis got royally screwed, he didnt get anything near the percentage that he should have at the height of his career). i'm sorry but you're just flat wrong, imagine the music world without the influence of elvis for a minute.

nope, i'm sorry the major record labels are abusive and the artists who willingly sign contracts with them have every right to bitch about getting screwed in order to pursue their career.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[1u3hr]

Maybe you're not aware that every time you hear music on a jukebox, from a DJ, in a karaoke bar, hell, on hold or in an elevator, someone who runs that business has been required to pay a royalty to a recording artists' association.

Of course. And of that tiny fee, how much gets to the artists? Ultimately thay get maybe .01% of what they'd pay a live artist. Or likely, nothing, as the rights were often signed over to the record companies. And the parent post was about the limited demand; with cheap recorded music most of the demand is met by top-100 artists and session musicians.

Not that I'm advocating this idea, just pointing out the kind of thing that would help musicians as opposed to giant media conglomerates.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[SonicSpike]

There is a book written by this guy: http://mtsu.edu/~record/hull.html which talks about that. In fact it includes 3 income streams: publishing/songwriting, recording, and live performance and shows how each stream interacts with one another.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[SonicSpike]

The labels don't rob anyone of anything. The copyright holders have to willfully transfer copyrights to the labels. I know of no such situation of this happening at gunpoint or under a situation of duress which would thus invalidate the contract. Both parties agree on the contract.

You are on the right track about radio airplay however. There is a fine line between that and 'payola', however there are a lot of backroom deals that go on. Airtime is limited and a song's life-cycle is finite.

Most bands just starting out can get cheap recording time or even buy their recording equipment and do it in their own homes. I know of many albums that were very well done in the comfort of their own living room. Of course the people doing the recording have to know what they are doing of course.

Most acts don't form and then first get into a record contract. Most acts (unless the individual members are already established) do live shows. After doing live shows they pool their money together to get a recording done. Then they do more live shows and have synergy between the shows and the recorded CD. If they are good, and there is a market in their genre for their style, then they will begin to build a name for themselves OVER TIME in a geographic area. At this point if they get bigger and bigger a record company A&R guy will eventually hear about them and then approach them and perhaps offer them a deal.

Most acts don't make mega-fame or mega-bucks. The only reason a few do is because the labels put all of their efforts behind them. It is VERY hard to make an ROI in the Industry. The labels have a lot of risk and a lot of liability when they sign a new act. Not to say that some of their tactics and practices aren't crappy, but again, everyone has to agree to enter into it willfully.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yet Nintendo holds a nice monopoly on producing Gamecube discs. The same with Sony and PS2 discs.

The term, "monopoly" does not really apply here. Nintendo competes with Sony in the console and game markets. They've become gatekeepers for ntheir own little market segment, but not monopolies.

PC realm is much more open, especially with the invention of shareware effectively giving anyone the ability to be a distributor, but there are very few examples of authors manging success even in this market, let alone having much of a foothold.

I think most PC software is created by companies not controlled by someone controlling the distribution channels.

... IMHO, because people are becoming more wise to the fact that they're paying multiple times for the same thing without any real added benefit and without any legitimate reason to have to pay again...

I hope this is true, although I have my doubts.

Perhaps their plans to limit supply are backfiring.

They certainly lose money by not selling certain works and old works are rarely "discovered" by a modern audience and catapulted into the mainstream the way they used to be. Still, I think they are making more money with this abuse than they are losing.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[rtb61]

The obvious point that seems to elude you is that unless they sign the contract under previous rules their ability to pay for the necessities of life with music will be negligible.

Kazza paying any money at this stage will be pretty pointless as independents self publishing on the net via torrent will be the future and dead music (recorded) will be considered noting more than advertising to get people to their live performances.

As for the mass market, over hyped, one hit wonders they thankfully will become a thing of the past (it's funny how many more than one drunken, drugged up minstrel can be the greatest at the same time depending on whose BS is flooding the marketing channels).

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[10101001 10101001]

>>Yet Nintendo holds a nice monopoly on producing Gamecube discs. The same with Sony and PS2 discs.

>The term, "monopoly" does not really apply here. Nintendo competes with Sony in the console and game markets. They've become gatekeepers for ntheir own little market segment, but not monopolies.

Monpolistic Competition

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Let me guess the term "monopolistic competition" was coined by a marketing guy or a mathematician? Orwell would be in titters.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[bigpicture]

But who creates the value today? The artists or the recording companies? The consumer pays for the music, if it is an enjoyable listen. They don't need to pay for the recording or promotion, because most of them already have that quality of recording technology themselves, and can do Google search.

I would pay an artist for music that I like, but why should I pay someone to record it. I can do that myself. It's about selling snow to Eskimos, the business model does not work. So with the help of the Government they create laws to make Eskimos buy snow. Create an electric light bulb tax to subsidize the candle makers.

Years ago there was all the whining and crying about the "sunset" industries, and surprisingly some that were identified turned out not to be "sunset" industries at all. Recording labels ARE in a "sunset" industry, they are just in "denial" about the inevitability of that.

Re:just how much will each artist make?

[Mister Whirly]

"For that matter, they also have a member list so if you really wanted, you could keep track of all those and organize a boycott of just those lables."

No way - I judge and buy music on the criteria of music only. Politics and music are a bad mix - I won't buy or not buy something based on anything but whether or not I like the music.

Next in line to pay up

[MECC]

Now lets see how much they'll pay to all the people whose PCs have been crippled by all the malware kazaa dumps on their computers.

FTFA: We have won another battle in an ongoing war," said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI). "We move forward with a spring in our step."

All they have to do now is get all those undead offenders to pay up.

Re:Next in line to pay up

[hkgroove]

That would be nice. However, the RIAA/MPAA would follow the money trail and have a whole new list of actual people to go after.

Re:Next in line to pay up

[dr_dank]

FTFA: We have won another battle in an ongoing war," said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI). "We move forward with a spring in our step."

Then Kennedy said "Ask not what the RIAA can do for you, but what you can do for the RIAA!".

Hungry artists...

[Anonymous Coward]

will continue to be hungry... How is this going to help anyone except the fat cats?

Re:Hungry artists...

[wackysootroom]

I think you missed the sarcasm in the story.

Re:Hungry artists...

[Aim Here]

You insensitive CLOD! Didn't you hear what happened to Kid Rock?

Re:Hungry artists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha! I only wish! Thanks for the funny link though.

the cost of music

[tehwebguy]

$100,000,000.00 / 20,000,000,000 Songs = $0.005

seems rather hypocritical that the RIAA won't allow AllofMP3 to sell songs for $0.05 when they are selling them for 10 times less..

Re:the cost of music

[friedman101]

Well the obvious difference is the RIAA gets 100% of that $0.005 and 0% of allofmp3's $0.05

I mean I hate the RIAA's practices as much as the next guy but let's keep our arguments within reason

Re:the cost of music

[MrSquirrel]

Yes, but you see, the RIAA owns those songs (well, the artists do, but the RIAA is like a big strong pimp that keeps the artist-hoes in their place)... it is the principle of it... you see, the... it... ...VICTORY IS MINE *runs to secret RIAA-funded escape pod* You'll never catch us!

Re:the cost of music

[Anonymous Coward]

NEW FROM THE RIAA!

Pirate music in bulk to get special discounts - up to 99%* cheaper than iTunes!

(*For pirating of more than 20,000,000,000 songs)

Re:the cost of music

[clickclickdrone]

To be fair, the problem with allofmp3 is that they are collecting royalties but they are then lodged with a company that most (all?) of record companies have no revenue processing relationship with so the funds can't be passed on and distributed.

Re:the cost of music

[Overzeetop]

With $100M, it seems like they could find someone who speaks Russian and forge that business relationship. And don't piss and moan about the corrupt Russian government and the shady legal company holding the royalties, what do you think the the US Congress and the RIAA look like to those in other countries?

Re:the cost of music

[clickclickdrone]

Forge a business relationship? That would be counter-productive to their ability to sue anything and everything for far more than they'd ever have spent on CDs. They make much more money this way.
This could be their worst move yet, especially now they've admitted the money is going to TPTB not the artists.

Re:the cost of music

[1u3hr]

To be fair, the problem with allofmp3 is that they are collecting royalties but they are then lodged with a company that most (all?) of record companies have no revenue processing relationship with so the funds can't be passed on and distributed.

How hard is it to send a letter asking for an accounting and a cheque? They don't even do that, because if they did collect their royalties they couldn't keep calling ALLofMP3 pirates. (Well, knowing them, they probably could both take the money and say they were robbed.)

But....

[zo1dberg]

Why does the money go to "the record industry", and not these "hungry artists"?

Re:But....

[42Penguins]

If the hungry artists are fed, then the only thing they can complain about piracy hurting is their bottom line. Who is more likely to draw sympathy, a starving artist or "the man?"

Re:But....

[evdubs]

The money goes to the lawyers and c-level executives that represent the RIAA because they're the ones organizing all of the suits against the illegal distribution mechanisms (and its participants). Musicians create music to be sold; they don't sue people for the abuse of IP they don't own.

Re:But....

[delinear]

Interestingly the BBC radio news broadcast a Q&A with some guy from the UK equivalent to the RIAA (which was practically a big advert for the music labels - Q&A as in some guy asked questions and then these were cherry picked by the label who then provided a soundbite response without any opportunity for the questioner to counter their arguments or delve deeper... and the BBC is meant to be a bastion of the media, hah!).

Anyway, what's interesting is that even though the interview was obviously heavily biased in the recording industry's favour, the guy still came off as self-contradictory and... well, slimy. When asked if downloads really hurt multi-million selling artists, his argument was that for every multi-million seller there are a hell of a lot of struggling artists who are being hurt by downloads. Fair enough, you might say. However, when asked why the record labels take such a huge cut of the profits, his response was that the artists get very well paid... how can they be both impoverished and well paid?

His only defence for the amount of money that the record labels award themselves was that they have high marketing costs. Well, it seems to me it's the artists at the top end of the scale that get all the expensive marketing, slots on TV and in magazines, etc. If there are many, many struggling artists for every top seller and the record labels are so concerned about this disparity, why aren't they heavily marketing the little guys and leaving the big fish to get on with it?

It was really quite sickening the way he was allowed to preach his lies for free on a supposedly unbiased national radio station (which we all know is a joke - these stations are in the record labels' pockets anyway, don't play nice with us and we'll make things very hard for you when it comes to exclusive plays of the newest hits, yadda yadda).

What was also interesting was that he admitted that not every single download equates to a lost sale. His response was that there is no real way of measuring how many actual lost sales result from illegal downloads. He didn't, however, explain why in the light of this view, the record labels still continue to spread the myth that every download is a lost sale (and nor was he pressed on the matter).

It's not hard to see why these people are able to ride roughshod over everyone when they've so obviously got the media in their pocket. They contradict themselves at every turn, they screw over both the music buyers and the musicians, governments turn a blind eye, p2p just seems to be a cash cow for them, the guy said they're already looking for their next target (I bet they didn't stand up in court and state that not every download on Kazaa amounted to a lost sale by a long margin)... ack, it makes my blood boil.

Proper Settlement

[N8F8]

The record industry claimants should get a 20% discount on future Kazaa downloads.

Like the rest of us ever get a real settlement from record indutry abuses.

20 Billion Tracks?

[stealie72]

Wow, 3+ tracks for every person on the planet?

How do they know those are all illegal? My CD collection is in my attic. My p2p software is on my desktop. I DL tracks from CDs I own all the time, because it's easier than finding the CD.

Did that get counted as an illegal download?

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it did, because it is.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[LiquidCoooled]

Yes, now bend over. - RIAA spokesperson.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[govtpiggy]

Yes they do count downloading tracks you own as an illegal download. You have to remember that even if you did take the time to find the CD the RIAA would still count that as an illegal action. What I'd like to know is where those numbers came from as I don't know how they think they can get anywhere near an accurate estimate on something that.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[91degrees]

Did that get counted as an illegal download?

well, given that it's a dpownloadm and what you're doing is illegal, I'd say "yes".

Fair use and the AHRA allow you to copy from a CD you own. Not one that someone else owns. I know they're identical, but what differenct does that make? The law can still be illogical.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[brunokummel]

The thing is ...
how can you, and the RIAA, be sure that the mp3 you're downloading comes from a person that actually owns the cd just the way you do??

In this case the issue is more about sharing the files than getting them . If you are sharing your files to anyone that may not own the CD, you're probably on RIAA's black list as well!
just a thought....

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[stealie72]

Holy crap, I went back and read the article that you referenced (somehow I missed it the first time) and came across this chestnut:

"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices"

The RIAA really plays both sides of the issue, eh? Sometimes I own a lisence to the music (when they're complaining about second-hand CD sales), and sometimes the music is a physical object that I have to spend $18 to replace if it breaks.

If these pricks didn't have the ears of congress, they'd be laughable.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. it does.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[Rik Sweeney]

DL tracks from CDs I own all the time, because it's easier than finding the CD

Wouldn't it be better to get all your CDs, rip them onto your computer in the format and bit rate you want, rather than downloading a version of P2P which is a heavily compressed casette tape recording of a song played on the radio?

I used to use P2P to download, but gave up when the bit rate said 192kbs and it was obviously 64kbs re-encoded at 192kbs...

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[xtracto]

My p2p software is on my desktop. I DL tracks from CDs I own all the time, because it's easier than finding the CD.

Unfortnately it is, the illegal action you are commiting is distributing the material because as you download you are also uploading. If I am right what you will be sued for is copyright infringment which is illegal distribution of their intellectual works.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[sdnoob]

using the industry's method of counting, where *every* download = a "lost sale" (which anyone with common sense knows isn't true); they probably count a downloaded track split between 20 peers (sources) as *20* downloaded files, not one.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[aurb]

I too have my p2p software on my desktop. And my CD collection is in my... well, I lost it. In a volcano.

Re:20 Billion Tracks?

[grumpyman]

>> Did that get counted as an illegal download? Yes. The cashier is on your right.

Well...

[kripkenstein]

In other news, use of Bittorrent and eDonkey networks is up.

"We have won another battle in an ongoing war [...] We move forward with a spring in our step."

I have to hand it to these guys, they can sure convince themselves of what they want to believe in.

Re:Well...

[MrSquirrel]

They would make excellent motivational speakers. Although personally, I'd rather use them in a zoo: "And if you look to your left, you'll see the RIAA-lawyer-sapien; a distant relative of man, the RIAA-laywer-sapien lives to feed maliciously and violently on the weak and wounded. Uh oh, hold on to your hats, it looks like a 13 year old girl just downloaded a Britney Spears song in the RIAA-layer-sapiens' pen... there they go folks... look at the way they swarm and strike with a spring in their step, it is certainly a fearsome sight -- thankfully they can't get through the inch of bulletproof glass on the bus, so there's no need to be worried."

Re:Well...

[delinear]

In other news, use of Bittorrent and eDonkey networks is up. "We have won another battle in an ongoing war [...] We move forward with a spring in our step." I have to hand it to these guys, they can sure convince themselves of what they want to believe in.

Haha. Yes, I imagine most people here stopped using the spyware infested rubbish that was Kazaa years ago. Just like we stopped using Napster years before they pulled that down, too. By the time they even begin to figure out how to approach the thorny bush of bittorrent, we'll already be using something better.

From where I'm standing it looks less like a spring in their step and more like a limp

Proud to be a Canuck

[digitrev]

Finally, we Canadians win some recognition where it is due. >.>

Frankly, I'm too lazy to download music. If I really want a CD, I'll buy it, or bug my friend's to see if they have it, and maybe do a music swap. Which of course includes ripping it to my computer.

Re:Proud to be a Canuck

[cyniCalsOCK]

I agree with your sentiments. Thats all I do. All the junk on the P2P networks is mostly 128k-160 kbps crap. I'm a drummer and i hate hearing cymbols that sound like you hit one underwater (my interpertation at least). I always go for a real CD. Just incase there is some massive EMP that wipes out my legally ripped MP3 collection, I still have my harcopies that can still play on my CD player that i haven't used in some time. (I only get the CD then rip it to 320kbps MP3)

And the artists get...

[grapeape]

And the hungry artists who were "damaged" by this get a $1 off coupon for their next recording session advance.

Kazaa would be better off throwing in the towel, a keyword search is too broad to block only protected works and will result in the service being mostly unusable for either legit or non legit uses.

Just watch MTV Cribs

[Artie_Effim]

Gee - I used to DL music, but after watching MTV Cribs and seeing those poor starving musicians with their 8000sq/ft homes and pools and 5 cars, I started buying all my music, you know..for kids.

Re:Just watch MTV Cribs

[lastchance_000]

Yes, but in a fews years they'll be on VH1 Behind the Music and you'll see how they lost it all.

OMG this is totally awesome

[Heir Of The Mess]

Now instead of having a large range of MP3s to choose from I can choose from a limited range of music that is encumbered with DRM. Where do I send my money?...allofmp3.com I guess. I wonder if the music industry will eventually get it?

Re:OMG this is totally awesome

[leuk_he]

get it? they don't they got 100 million. Get it?

Re:OMG this is totally awesome

[nogginthenog]

Why not download from newsgroups / bittorrent? It's just as legal as allofmp3, but cheaper.

Re:OMG this is totally awesome

[bmalia]

In my experiances, I've found your choices on newsgroup and bittorrent are rather limited and that P2P networks tend to have a better selection.

Re:OMG this is totally awesome

[shark72]

"Now instead of having a large range of MP3s to choose from I can choose from a limited range of music that is encumbered with DRM. Where do I send my money?...allofmp3.com I guess. I wonder if the music industry will eventually get it?"

The way to really make the music industry "get it" is to use sites like Magnatune and emusic, not the Russian pirate sites.

Magnatune and emusic sell DRM-free music with the artist's permission, and give a hefty cut to the artists; much more than the traditional record companies do.

If you and everybody reading this start supporting efforts like Magnatune and emusic, you'll show the music industry -- record companies and artists -- that there's a real market out there for DRM-free music. They'll be able to expand and sign bigger and better artists and show the traditional record labels some serious competition.

If you just keep giving your money to some Russian site, you're showing the music industry that you're just a pirate, and they'll write you off.

Note that I'm not saying that using Allofmp3 is wrong... if you acknowledge that you don't particularly care if the musicians get paid, then go ahead; no point in wasting your time on Magnatune and emusic which inflate their prices so they can pay the artists. But you won't be sending a particularly productive message to the music industry.

Re:OMG this is totally awesome

[grumpyman]

>> I wonder if the music industry will eventually get it? They already got it - it's just that they don't want to change because they get the most out of the current system.

And the next Utility is

[VEGETA_GT]

Ok seriously, dose the record industry think going after kazaa well stop internet downloads. First ff, kazaa is pain anyway, seriously screwing up network traffic. There are already much better solutions out there to acquire music. Any time some web site or program gets taking down, another always seams to come in to take its place. The RIAA needs to get a clue and say, we can't beat it, lets find a way to use it. And they are also to dumb to realize its already helping them as it is. I have so many friends who download a cd before they buy it. If its crap, hay pay for it, if it's good then they get it.

But what program do you think are next on the list to take over from kazaa and be the next target of the RIAA/MPAA.

What kind of Download Service will they Become?

[KarmaOverDogma]

That's just as interesting a subject as their change of heart. Ideally there would be:

1) the option to purchase individual tracks cheap, like iTunes
2) with as little DRM as possible (preferably none)
3) the option to buy full albums that cost less than the physical version (say, Five Bucks)
4) the full albums would have the goodies like lyrics
5) there would be bonus materials not available in stores (just like with CDs that killed the LP)
6) Peer review of the tracks and/or albums would be permitted *by those who have bought them*, so we could know if the music was good or TeH sUcK.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

All New DRMed service coming soon?

[trawg]

Cool - will the 'new Kazaa'...

- have anywhere near the range of the old one?
- ship us DRMed files that aren't compatible with all our devices?
- cost less, the same or more than iTunes?
- be adware sponsored to keep costs of music down?

Unless there are favourable answers to all these questions (and more, no doubt), what possible incentive is there going to be to use this service.

I'd happily pay $50 a month (or whatever, some reasonable monthly fee / bandwidth even) to download whatever mp3s I wanted from Kazaa that anyone wanted to share. I'd happily let my downloads be tracked so it could go into a big database somewhere so royalties could be paid to artists and labels.

Re:All New DRMed service coming soon?

[Alsee]

New Kazaa... the New Napster clone.

-

None. This just offsets Record Industry costs

[giafly]

does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?

"While the award may seem like a vast pot of money, it will merely offset the millions we have invested - and will continue to invest - in fighting illegal pirate operations around the world" - EMI Music vice chairman David Munns

Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs

[timeOday]

Hahahaha. Oh, that's golden. I couldn't have made up a more lawyerly and selfish resonse. 0% for the artists, straight from the horse's mouth.

Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs

[Sammy76]

So, the cost of bringing piracy to justice is greater than the losses incurred by said piracy?

Unreal.

Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Which casts a huge megalith of doubt on their intentions. No profit driven enterprise would spend more on litigation than they expect to get in return - which is why, for example, car companies don't issue recalls for lemons if they expect to be able to settle for far less than a recall will cost.

So that leaves one wondering - what do they really want? And there's only one answer left.

Power and control.

Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs

[timeOday]

Which casts a huge megalith of doubt on their intentions. No profit driven enterprise would spend more on litigation than they expect to get in return - which is why, for example, car companies don't issue recalls for lemons if they expect to be able to settle for far less than a recall will cost.

I suppose the RIAA would argue that the intention of their lawsuits is not to get rich off the settlements, but to curb piracy thus driving up legitimate music sales long term.

Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs

[cthulhu11]

Kazaa is still a free thing, right? So WTF are they going to get $100m?

20 billion downloads?

[complete loony]

That's not a war, that's a massacre.

Ka-what?

[Simon Garlick]

Kazaa...? Oh, I remember. It was big back in the nineties, right?

What, it still exists?! No way.

Re:Ka-what?

[deviceb]

lol.... exactly.

get with the times ya know?
I figure kazza knows they are on the out, but still have the 100 mil. to join the otherside of the force for a while.
Personally.. i have been listening to "underground" music sense i was like 13. So i only get mad that the RIAA is ruining music culture for mainstream america.
Electronic music will never have these issues... Wait do they make DRM for records now??

everybody has listened to YT Cracka right? funny stuff

Behind the Times

[Billosaur]

"We have won another battle in an ongoing war," said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI). "We move forward with a spring in our step."

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries? Ok guys, it's the 21st Century, so you may want to update the name a little. Although, I have to admit, the new USB turntable I installed on my multi-media PC is smokin'!

I wonder if they ever get confused with the International Federation of the Pornographic Industries?

Re:Behind the Times

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that compare to American Telephone and _Telegraph_?

Re:Behind the Times

[Swordsmanus]

I speed read, and when I first read your post, I did read it as the International Federation of the Pornographic Industries.

Re:Behind the Times

[shark72]

"The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries?"

Brilliant! Now tell the NAACP that "colored people" is an outdated term, and the the ACM that "computing machinery" is pretty archaic, too. And, of course, the AC's note that nobody uses telegraphs anymore, so AT&T need to get with the times.

"I wonder if they ever get confused with the International Federation of the Pornographic Industries?"

Yeah, somebody points that out every time, too.

Just Like Napster.......

[segedunum]

...and countless others that then disappear without trace and become replaced by other filesharing networks and software. Brilliant. Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people...

"The market is now fragmenting. Unless you are an ardent downloader it is becoming harder to know where to go," he said.

Yer, I know. Everyone struggled when Napster ceased to be.

No problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

With their (RIAA) business model even those $100m won't last for long before they're forced to spend less money on their lawyers.

And when they're forced to spend less money on ther lawyers they will lose one case after another and at some point in the future they won't even be able to produce income from sueing people anymore.

Shaq

[krell]

"Kazaa...? Oh, I remember. It was big back in the nineties, right?"

Yeah, it was that Shaquille O'Neal genie movie. Yeah, I think you'll have to pay me $100 million to see THAT turkey again!

Please, pretty please, once and for all

[zuki]

What the scariest thing is with this type of settlement is that no one,absolutely no one seems to really know - or care - about what will happen to such a huge pile of money, and further that it probably will only go to enrich those who have major chart successes, their lawyers, or the IFPI itself (claiming it needs more $$ to fight piracy), rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded.

Of course, as with a major news organization such as the BBC, no need to wax philosophic on the actual real-world meaning and consequences of such actions, and the possible windfall (or lack thereof) to those who created the content in question. Rethorical question if you ask me.

Sort of like the "War On Terror(TM)"... By now everyone forgot why we are fighting it, as we are too involved in the day-to-day fighting to remember what it was supposed to be about.

Carry on lads, carry on....

Z.

Re:Please, pretty please, once and for all

[miro f]

well... the RIAA have already said the money will go into offsetting the money they spend fighting pirates. So yes, it will go to their lawyers.

And where does the money come from? Well, the consumer of course. In the end it's no big deal, lawyers are to money as heat is to energy, given enough time all energy becomes heat and all money goes to lawyers.

Re:Please, pretty please, once and for all

[dwandy]

rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded

You're either forgetting that the CRIA/RIAA/IFPI types ARE the Labels (and so the "copyright holders" are effectively, if not actually, getting the money) or you're under the mistakened* impression that artists hold the copyright to the music they write...

*excepting artists who never signed with a label...and well, they wouldn't be represented in this anyways, right?

Re:Please, pretty please, once and for all

[StringBlade]

rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded

Don't confuse artist with copyright holder. In this case, the RIAA/IFPI is the copyright holder by contract, and the artist is just the workhorse. As such, the money is going to the copyright holder.

Finally, they embrace technology!

[Volante3192]

And with Kazaa's refocusing into a pay service, it clearly shows that the RIAA is finally realizing the power that peer to peer networks have and will be able to mold it into a high quality distribution method. Plus there's already a high installed userbase to give this new service a strong kickstart.

What's that? Look at Napster? Didn't they get sued to oblivian?

THAT'S a pay service now too?! We're doomed...

Re:Finally, they embrace technology!

[Billosaur]

What's that? Look at Napster? Didn't they get sued to oblivian?

THAT'S a pay service now too?! We're doomed...

Not to mention , Napster stinks now. My wife tried using them to get music for her iRiver but had nothing but technical problems with the downloads not working, plus all sorts of extra fees for the songs she really wanted, as opposed to the general tripe they peddle. Kinda sad to see this happening.

Canada Number 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFReport cites Canada as the second worst 'offender' in music downloads worldwide.
Perhaps that is due to our Blank Media levy that makes downloading essentially legal in this country.
Now whether those billions of tracks were subsequently uploaded is another question entirely (this is not covered by the levy), but i suppose that doesn't help the RIAA:

"Them there Canucks did 23 Braaziiiilion downloads. Invade Canada!!"

Re:Canada Number 2?

[ChaosCube]

HA! Downloading is legal in America, and we don't have a silly tax smacked on it either. Of course, distribution is where we Americans run into trouble.

Re:Canada Number 2?

[dwandy]

This is just marketing/FUD. It's important for them to keep stating that Downloading Is Illegal, despite the fact that this not universally true.
(1) As you stated, downloading even copyright material is legal in Canada. (2) They noticably never state that (even elsewhere!) a lot of downloading is legal -- for example all the cc-license stuff.
Copyright Law doesn't make Downloading illegal. And this sort of talk is not accidental. It's important for this issue to be black and white. By repeatedly stating that downloading is illegal they are entrenching this in people's mind. They don't want cc-type license music out there: it will destroy they business model.

So TFA states:

It focuses on pirated CDs and illegal music downloads which ...[blahblahblah]
Some of the worst offenders, says the IFPI, include Brazil and Canada. The two countries downloaded more than two billion tracks.

but technically, in Canada, there is no such thing as an illegal music download... so WTF is he talking about?

Re:Canada Number 2?

[McGiraf]

"but technically, in Canada, there is no such thing as an illegal music download."

Just wait a bit they're working on that.

RIAA wins! No one else does...

[paladinwannabe2]

"Hungry artists across the globe rejoice" isn't even in the article- probably because it's just wrong. And while I do not support illegal filesharing, I do have to agree with earlier posters that the starving artists won't see a dime of this settlement. In fact, I'd be suprised if any artists, even the 'big names', get some of the settlement. The artist's contract only gets them money under certain conditions- and I'll bet that 'settlements from lawsuits' are not one of those conditions. No, this is a victory for the RIAA, but not particularly helpful to anyone else.

Yeah...Right...

[infosec_spaz]

Like the actual artists will see one fucking penny of it!! RIAA will claim that legal costs have eaten it all up, and that they sued on behalf of the artist, so there is no money left, but from now on, the artist will see more money...anyone besides me see a terrible ass raping here?!?!?

100M will fund plenty RIAA prosecutions, and . . .

[ysaric]

This money could be used for attorney fees for going after the next P2P company, or to go after individuals downloaders/sharers, or to R&D for the next DRM scheme, or for lobbying governments for laws that benefit them and/or make it easier for them to target the above groups.

One thing it will likely not be used for is to work to further integrate musicians and their music into quality, legal digital distribution channels that allow broad consumer rights.

Re:RIAA wins! No one else does...

[cerberusss]

"Hungry artists across the globe rejoice" isn't even in the article- probably because it's just wrong

Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

Go Mexico Go!

[xtracto]

Wee Mexico on the TOP 10 list!.

On a serious note, instead of "fragmenting" and making harder to see where to go, what they are doing is homogenizing (spell??) it. All those kazaa users will go ([to bittorrent+emule+X]-1) P2P software that is available. That is great from my point of view because that way you will have to hunt less places to get what you need.

I remember once I downloaded winmx and could found the GAMEDEV magazine ISO disks, unfortunately I could not download it because my connction was still a modem. In those days you had edonkey, kazaa, imesh, napster, and I dont remember how many others.

The more of those netwoks they close, the better another network will become (in anonymity, content and users).

Re:Go Mexico Go!

[gsn]

Sure but homogenizing all the users into a few networks is a bad idea - fewer targets to take down. Also if the network has more users and they manage to find a way to defeat the anonymity the network offers, a lot more people get lawsuits.

Even if there are less places to search, I think it was easier "in those days" to find a p2p network on which you could find the music you wanted *easily* than it is today. I can still find the music I want - it just takes more searching on emusic, allofmp3 and emusic. I think this is partly because their lawsuits have been working.

I'd like a download service which gave me DRM free, high birate, cheaper than a buck (zero materials and why do tracks from the 80s cost the same as tracks tday - obviously I'm going to feel ripped off) and personally if I pay 49c per song thats low enough that I will use your service and high enough that I wont share my music on p2p. Ofcourse I'd also like to walk on the moon... the sad thing is that I'm so disenchanted by the music biz that I think a moonwalk is more likely than a high quality comprehensive customer (not consumer) friendly download service.

Re:100M will fund plenty RIAA prosecutions, and .

[WingedEarth]

If the disgusting, greedy, self-serving, ignoble, traitorous music industry cared at all about adding something positive to its community, it would have already worked out a scheme of blanket licensing for P2P downloads, that would allow P2P services to operate legitimately by paying monthly flat fees, in the way that venues pay for blanket public performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. But unfortunately, all these monopolists care about is economics and control. It's disgusting that this sort of people control the art and culture in this country. Why didn't they go into banking or finance where they belong? Also, they don't know the first thing about art, and any good artists they sign is either through luck, or by buying up small labels that haven proven successful.

"Hungry artists rejoice"...? Dream on!

[RokcetScientist]

The only party that's going to benefit from this is the music INDUSTRY! The Sony's, Warner Brothers, c.s. The mammoth corporations and fat cats that WE, the consumer, MADE mammoth corporations and fat cats. And they still want more!
Artists will be the LAST to benefit from this. And the consumer keeps on paying through the nose! For instance by ILLEGAL means: INTIMIDATION. Witness the MPAA trying to extort an innocent member of the public: http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/start.html?pg =3

Here is a mental picture: RIAA, the Zoo keeper

[layer3switch]

Record Industry represented by RIAA, the Zoo keeper
Artists, dirty animals yanked out of their natural habitat (street corner)
The sign, "Please, Don't Feed the Artists."
Listeners, "We are not allowed to see animals outside of the Zoo... because it's illegal..."

I hope, ./er's minds are still active and imaginative enough to draw that satire cartoon in your mind.

Some animals are more equal than others

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody is guaranteed the right to make money"

Really? The RIAA seems to think they are. And the U.S. congress seems to agree with them.

But at the heart of what you're saying, I agree with you. People should be allowed to borrow money from loan sharks. They should be allowed to buy tainted food. In fact, the only thing a government should do is enforce contracts. That way, people will be much better off. Don't you agree that when big businesses do well, we all enjoy the fruits of their success?

In fact, history shows that when big business is unchecked, it is a golden age for the world. That's what GW Bush is trying to do. He is slowly undoing the shackles on big business that keep them from reaping the fruits of their labor. A lot of people complaining about workers rights, or consumers rights are just whiners and complainers. Where would we be if not for the largesse of large corporations.

Why do people *COMPLAIN* all the time about this benevolent hand that guides us, much as a mother might put us to their breast and allow us to suckle at that teat of kindness and success known as the corporation.

Re:Some animals are more equal than others

[Roody Blashes]

Your idiotic comment in no way represents any of the opinions I expressed.

Feel free, however, to explain, with adequate documentation, how the RIAA's behavior is on the same level as selling toxic food or providing loans with the threat of bodily harm or death in the event of non-repayment.

Re:Some animals are more equal than others

[mfrank]

They indirectly pay the radio stations to play only their songs? How is the situation today arguably different than when they were being busted for the payola scandals a few decades ago?

The internet's changing things, but that doesn't do much for the people who signed with the labels five years ago.

Re:Some animals are more equal than others

[jc42]

How is the situation today arguably different than when they were being busted for the payola scandals a few decades ago?

Easy one. Today, payola is legal.

didn't they get shut down already?

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA has shut down several networks before and yes they have been replaced and other came back from the dead. winMX was shut down and within two months was patched by the users to run again and still remains adware free. Surely if the user wishes to continue file sharing they will. Either by moving from one network to the next or by reviving a dead one with a few good patches.

If the RIAA was so interested about stopping piracy, they'd have to stop lining thier pockets with greed. A being that artist make very little if anything off a cd, I don't see it happening.

RI, MP, Kaz

[naddington]

Now we have another group to call **AA.

The problem with your argument...

[LKM]

The RIAA constantly tries to sucker people into thinking that they're helping the artists, that stealing is wrong because it takes money away from the artists and that they're doing all that suing simply to help the poor artists. For that reason, hearing from actual artists who get screwed by the recording companies is good and important, regardless of whether it's their own damn fault.

Re:The problem with your argument...

[Roody Blashes]

I don't have a problem with them expressing their opinions. Open communication is an important part when factoring whether or not you should enter into any kind of business relationship whether it's you buying a candy bar at the local supermarket or two companies considering a merger.

I'm merely pointing out that if an artist DOES sign these contracts, they are usually to blame for any failure of superstardom (exceptions made for mismanagement and pure accidental failures, of course). After the fact, if an artist feels that they were mistreated, they can talk about it so that other artists can consider that testimony when making THEIR decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that they willingly entered into the contract in the first place.

I'm not saying the RIAA isn't a nasty cartel that manipulates its members and artists for profit. I'm arguing against the perception Slashbots press that the RIAA is some sort of heaving monster that's just gobbling up innocent people without any willing participation from the artists.

Re: I want to help the small artists

[cloneofsnake]

Does anyone know where I can download some music for free? :P

How about 4 out of 6, today?

[pedestrian crossing]

1) $0.22/track - Check

2) None - Check

3) See 1) - Check

4) Nope, sorry.

5) Maybe, I've seen extra tracks available for some albums...

6) Check

Check it out!

20 billion songs

[future assassin]

Minus all the ones I already owned on cd but was to lazy to rip off my cd's so I slowly downloaded them when I had time. Multiply that by tens of 1000's of times and the number shivels down. I wonder if they threw in software/cracks/porn vids into that number.

Perhaps the money could go...

[ursabear]

I don't know if the settlement will change the way music/software/content is traded and shuffled via the internet.


But, here is my hope: I'd like to see the RIAA spend that $100m on the following:

*) Pay royalties/living wage/etc. to all those artists from the early days of recordings - the ones that got paid a pittance for performance, but never received any living from the subsequent profitability and ownership of those tunes/recordings. There are tons of older musicians out there that the public loves - musicians that are living in the "poor house" while corporations collect royalties.

*) Fund music education in the schools. Give good instruments to schools - particularly in areas where funding is scarce, and the kids can ill afford today's $1k+ instruments. Help pay music educators, particularly where budgets don't fund liberal arts.

*) Fund collaborations between experienced artists and up-and-coming artists. The beauty of music is that it is also meant to be shared between musicians, on top of being shared with its listeners. Fund collaborations with folks like B.B. King, Carlos Santana, Yoyo Ma, etc. and kids who are getting started out with music.

*) Fund and encourage labels to take risks with artists that are not necessarily the latest commercial success. If not funding the labels, fund the musicians themselves and give them access to qualified folks who can help spread their music.

*) Use the money to promote a broad spectrum of music from less-than-well-known artists. Give the listeners of the world music that comes from the soul, not the boardroom.

Thre is no $100m

[Cainjustcain]

Everyone seems busy divying up the $100m reward between record execs and artists. But, does anyone actually believe Kazaa has that kind money? Ten to one they fold up shop and no one sees a dime.

Somebody took the blue pill

[Tony]

Why should the music industry make things *better* for the purchasing citizens? That's just crazy talk!

Consider iTunes. It'd cost $23 to purchase Battlestar Galactica soundtrack. I can purchase it in stores for $13.

The point isn't to make money, or create a new, better distribution system. It's to tighten control on the system they already have in place. Change will happen in spite of them, not because of them.

It's time to support your independent music distributor.

Re:Somebody took the blue pill

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like somebody didn't read the parent post completely. It reads to liking the idea of and requesting the ability to purchase full albums on line cheaper than in the brick and mortar establishment.

If you're going to answer a poster's question, try answering the poster's question, not your question.

As to the issue of control and change, I agree that supporting independent music distribution could be helpful - as long as they offer the product in terms the parent post mentions.

Re:Somebody took the blue pill

[dwandy]

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

I no longer buy music unless it's non-RIAA.

The madness will not end until the money does.

Every RIAA afiliate album you buy is money for another lawsuit.

If, like I do, you disagree with the business' tactics, there is only one language they understand: money.

Stop buying CRIA/RIAA tunes, but spend the same money on other (independant) albums.

the money will be used for MORE lawsuits

[TheGratefulNet]

the artists won't get a penny.

what will happen is the riaa's lawyers will get a new house, car and maybe some other toys, too.

riaa: "another day, another lawsuit"

Re:the money will be used for MORE lawsuits

[jcorcione]

I agree. Look how far we have come when in the "old school" days we were able to get an LP record it on a cassette and be able to "share" it with or friends. I believe boot legging albums and selling in record stores or on the streets is a small percentage of what "normal" sharing of music between friends is. Is the music listener populous all corrupt?

And why is it in some recent litigation (can't remember the actual case) that the RIAA settled and sent billions of dollars back to the consumer for over charging on Music CD's or other media? Go figure.

Thats just my 2 cents... or should i just give that to the RIAA as well?

IP they don't own

[Tony]

Yeah. Heaven forbid the artists actually get money for music they create. Also forbid they get the rights to the music they create. After all, we all know it's the mega-corps that are the *good* guys.

Digital Age Sends Rock Age to Stone Age

[aplusjimages]

I know what you mean. Poor Metallica. Have you seen those guys? They are so poor and hungry that they lost all that great long hair that made them stars. Their brains are so starved that they've lost the talent to write great music all due to the Internet and this p2p stuff. Shut it down. Shut it all down, so they can get back on their feet.

The lost revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a more important calculation:

20 billion songs / 2 (approx number of decent songs on a CD) = 10 billion

Since everyone that illegally downloaded a song would have bought the CD, that's 10 billion lost CD sales. Assuming the price of $10 per CD, the RIAA has lost 100 billion dollars. What a kind and forgiving coporation to settle for 100 million.

Re:The lost revenue

[laffer1]

yeah they should have received more. The difference here is that the RIAA thinks the kazaa brand could SELL music. The housewife with 2 kids with a neighbor who downloaded a cd on her wireless network isn't going to SELL music so she gets charged much more for 1 CD. Where is the justice in that? I hope this case can help with some of the stupid civil suits to convince a judge that music isn't WORTH THAT MUCH.

Um funny numbers.

[tinkerghost]

OK 80% of Pirate CD stands (physical media) were closed in a Mexican city -> 25%+ increase in sales.
.25/.8=.3125 = 31%+ of all sales in the city were pirate CD's - physicals not downloads - and not including impulse buys because they were cheap.
I really think that the record companies might want to redirect their efforts from the P2P users & back to the sources. 30%+ of the CD's were not being cranked out in somebody's basement. This is & always has been big business.
Kaazzaa was stupid, IIRC they offered tracks for sale, but they also encouraged trading.
Personnally, I'm not certain how a P2P company can effectively filter files. Most titles contain common words. Filtering out audio files titled 'Stupid Boy Band #1' is also going to filter any podcast review of it. MD5 checking on the file? Rip w/ a different bitrate & it changes - hell you can rip a random watermark into the file & no 2 source copies of the song would have the same MD5.
The only effective thing is to respond to requests to remove specific indexes. But any bets on **AA surfing & submitting a request to every search engine every day? P2P has a lot of legitimate uses, some that distributers are starting to recognize, and it's not going away. So somewhere/sometime there has to be a compromise. So far the **AA isn't willing to see that. But as long as they are going to keep dumping restrictions people don't like onto how people can use thier media, they are going to see people pirating things en masse.

Future settlements

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we've just established the benchmark for all future settlements/court awards: $10,000,000 / 20,000,000,000 = $0.005/track.

Have you been accused of sharing 100,000 tracks? That will be $500, please.
One million tracks? $5,000, please.

We stand still.

[bruno.fatia]

PRIORITY COUNTRIES

• Brazil
• Canada
• China
• Greece
• Indonesia
• Italy
• Mexico
• Russia
• South Korea
• Spain

Source: IFPI Just move in here and you'll be fine! I hope to be 1st on that list forever! Although some ISPs are now traffic shaping, that's only BitTorrent, you can still pretty much anything :)

Obligatory Star Wars quote

[Mayhem178]

The more you tighten your grip, RIAA, the more P2P networks will slip through your fingers.

Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote

[jbenwell]

Right. Even dead, Ray Charles would kick the Emporer's ass.

Won't Kazaa just fold?

[Kengineer]

Come on people, who here really thinks that Kazaa is going to pay that kind of money to the RIAA?

An even better question is, do they even have that kind of money in the first place?!

More likely Kazaa will just divest themselves of all their assets, loot what they can from the cofers and then declare bankruptcy.

Re:Won't Kazaa just fold?

[Anonymous Coward]

no they'll just sell to RIAA

Re:Won't Kazaa just fold?

[Reziac]

I had the same thought. But my next thought was that it'll probably go like this:

Kazaa pays a token part of the settlement up front, keeps operating as usual, and goes gung-ho for anything that can make a buck.

The RIAA takes the lion's share of those future bucks.

Hungry Lawyers rejoice

[ElectricRook]

Hungry artists across the globe rejoice

Hungry Lawyers are the only ones to profit here... All in three easy steps

Step 1) go to law school
Step 2a) buy a politician, oop's they're already bought
Step 2a) join a law firm owned by politicians
Step 2b) find a target to sue
Step 3) Profit!

Hillary Rodham-Clinton's brother earned US $1B from sueing tobacco companies.

I cannot believe I'm defending the Backstreet Boys

[Weaselmancer]

...but you've forced me to.

Just because you don't like what they do, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid fairly for fair work. Those guys were very popular among a particular group of fans and raked in millions. And haven't seen a penny of it. They were actors? So what! They worked for a company, performed a service, brought in millions in revenue. Why shouldn't they be paid for it?

Mod up, please

[Weaselmancer]

Positively brilliant insight there. Hope you get modded up.

I'm currently writing and producing some music...

[Anonymous Coward]

In my home studio. When I'm done producing an album's worth of material, I think I'm going to just put it up on a website and let people download it for free. There will be a place where downloaders can donate money if they like what they hear. I just can't see myself getting involved with a music label at this point.

hungry artists?

[pxuongl]

i think that hungry artists existed long before p2p networks sprung up

Re:RIAA wins! No one else does...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the submitter wrote "hungry artists across the globe rejoice" as a sarcastic addendum. He forgot that this isn't fark.com.

Not a bad price

[Photar]

20B songs for 100M is 200 songs per dollar. Thats half a cent per song, better than allofmp3.com's prices.

P2P is the enemy of Marketeers, not Artists.

[delire]

Files might be being downloaded 'illegally' but here in Europe the recording industry is doing better than it ever was. These n-billion files that are being downloaded cannot be counted as a loss, as they wouldn't be bought anyway. They are being downloaded precisely because they are free; an argument for damage here is absurd.

P2P is best thought of as an advanced try-before-you-buy network. For this reason the people that are losing money from P2P are not recording artists, but Marketing Execs that would like to steer our consumption interests and habits, in short to push crap on us we don't want. P2P lifts the standards of consumer choice.

"Artists around the world rejoice", my llama..

What I Wonder...

[Nom du Keyboard]

What I wonder in all this: Does Sharman even have $100M+?

Do they have more than that?

Lets have REAL legal P2P!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are hundreds of thousands of musicians out there who WANT you to download their music. One previous poster mentioned Janice Ian, Roger McGuinn is another.

Like many artists, McGuinn has MP3s for download on his web site, but for smaller, less known (and less wealthy) artists, hosting fees for all those big files are expensive. A Torrent stub works far better for these folks, and (dare I say it since so many slashdotters hate them and think their users are morons) MySpace works for them, too.

But I'd like to see exactly what the RIAA claims (but I don't believe it for a minute) they want (and may not even be technically possible)- a P2P service that only will work for those (non-RIAA) artists who WANT their music shared and listened to.

My thoughts are that the RIAA knows damned well that P2P increases sales and brings in more money, but that is the problem - they can't control it like they can radio. The RIAA can keep The Station off of the radio and out of the music stores, but they can't keep them off of P2P.

Killing P2P is their way of killing their competetion; their competetion is unsigned, self-published artists.

Someone at least should make a P2P client that doesn't download to a shared folder.

The freenetbay?

[haeger]

Why isn't there a thefreenetbay.org somewhere that does what thepiratebay.org does? Sharing keys to downloadable material on freenet. God knows there's a lot there, and it's quite easy to find.
What would be harder to find though are the ones sharing. Yes, speed is still low but that's being worked on afaik, and for anonymity that might be a low price to pay?

.haeger

Payment to 'record industry'

[xnomdig]

The payment by kazaa of $100-million dollars to the 'record indistry' for the download of 20-billion 'tracks' works out to 0.5 cent per track. It can't possibly be worth the while of the 'record industry' to distibute this trifle to the creators of the original works (even if the 'record industry' already know how many times each artist's work was downloaded), so it's pretty obvious the $100-million will be used instead to fatten the coffers of the 'record industry' and never be seen by the creators of original work. Of course, this sort of theft compounds the theft of downloading the 'tracks' in the first place.

Until purchase or per use royalty is paid directly to the creators of original work, it will never be equitable. If royalty were paid directly to the creators of original work, it would then be up to them to pay for services (e.g., distribution, promotion, etc.) rendered (if the services were actually rendered satisfactorily).

Paying purchase or per use royalty to the creators of original work clearly was impractical/impossible before the advent of computers and computer networks. Nowadays, it should be a simple matter to pay purchase or per use royalty directly to the creators of original work and leave the present 'media companies' out of the royalty payment chain altogether. What are now the 'media companies' could continue to provide their 'services', but they would be paid at the discretion of the creators of original work -- for services actually rendered to the satisfaction of the creators of original work.

If the public and the creators of original works would together petition the (Federal) lawmakers, a 'direct' royalty payment system using the Internet could soon be put in place. The same legislation should also void all existing 'artists contracts' with the 'media companies' as they would have been made superfluous. Contracts with 'media companiees' have always been a bad idea, as demonstrated by the observable fact that they have gone so horribly wrong.

Remember the whole point of copyright and royalty payment is to encourage and reward the creators of original work. Funneling the royalty payment through a third party (e.g., the 'media companies', 'publishers', etc.) was always a bad idea, but it started when there was no other option. The Internet makes it possible to fix this mess rather easily.

Re: Economic Models

[TaoPhoenix]

Yes, the internet is here. Of course anyone can produce stuff for "free" and give it away. In this case, your music is being subsidized by your "regular job". However, you're supposed to be finding ways for musicians to support themselves *by* their music. That's what a big record company is "supposed" to be about. (Re: Janis Ian, they're not, but that's another story.)

I can think of two cousin models: Self Printed books, and Shareware. Honestly, because such things do tend to be second tier producers, they have second tier quality much of the time. (The exceptions have to fight the statistical average.)
I'll propose that anyone's self produced anything can sell 25-100 copies. But going over that 100 copy mark could be difficult. There may be exceptions, but then wouldn't the artist be too exhausted selling, to create? So then they think of hiring a sales agent... and WHAM, that's when it suddenly gets expensive, requiring greater sales to break even, and so on.

I wish I had some answers.

TaoPhoenix

I've got some bad news for you

[LunaticTippy]

It was Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) Utah. Here's a sample article

I probably shouldn't be so hard on Orrin. Technically, he is a musician.

Side-door.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm going to spare you all the usual song and dance routine every time music and the RIAA get mentioned here and recommend you read this.

Ha

[toxicity69]

I heard about this on the car radio driving home from work. They had a record executive talking smugly "Oh we can do this, that, the other, etc." I just had to laugh, I mean, seriously, anyone who can read English hasn't used Kazaa in years. Its full of fake files, not just the RIAAs but also those of people who, for some reason, like to use up a lot of their own bandwidth transmitting bogus files....and its also ridden with viruses. They probably did more good for the p2p community than bad. In any case, far better p2p systems like Bittorrent have replaced it, by taking down Kazaa they took down probably the most obvious target, but most assuredly did practically nothing to stop p2p piracy.

Kazaa settlement is morally wrong

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I have seen reports that Kazaa has entered into a settlement with the RIAA, under which it will seek to sell "licensed" RIAA music throught p2p technology. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. I am assuming that the settlement does not in any way affect the thousands of lawsuits against Kazaa customers. If that is so, it's wrong. Many of the fine people who are being terrorized by the RIAA are in this mess because of Kazaa, and a settlement which gets Kazaa off the hook with the RIAA but doesn't do anything for the good folks who took Kazaa at its word, is not something I find comforting in the least. I would have thought that Kazaa would have done something to end the reign of terror against its customers. If the settlement doesn't provide for the cessation of RIAA litigation against Kazaa customers, and if Kazaa will be working with the RIAA to sell licensed distribution, I would call upon all members of the public to boycott the 'new Kazaa' to the same extent that they are boycotting the RIAA. And I would call upon all defendants in RIAA cases, who are being sued because of Kazaa, to consider -- if they have the means to do so -- cross suing Kazaa.

Re:RIAA wins! No one else does...

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah

Related to Niklas Zennstrom legal issues?

[ampersmith]

Just wondering if this is related to Ebay's effort to clean up the legal status of Nicklas Zennstrom and Janus Friss. They've been steering clear of the US for years, refusing invitations to speak at industry events, etc. I believe Ebay had put some pretty serious legal and ol' boy network effort into straightening this out. Maybe some of their 2.4 billion will be helping Kazaa pay its bill. I would guess we might be seeing them here sometime soon.

kazaa still around?

[Squigley]

People still use Kazaa? gees. It went down the toilet after they stopped Morpheus connecting to the network, I thought that was pretty much the end of it.

Contract changes...

[SonicSpike]

First off, your power provider is a government-granted monopoly usually just like your water provider, sewer service, cable company, ans PSTN dial-tone provider. Therefore, you don't have a choice.

In regards to XP, if you don't like the terms of their license you DO have a choice; Linux, Mac, write your own, etc.

While the RIAA and their labels tend to be very slimy, the artists don't have to enter into contracts with them. There are THOUSANDS of independent labels out there. Or, the artist can do things on their own if they want. And the labels DO have a lot to lose if an artist flops; money, and credibility.

Simple solution...

[SonicSpike]

Get an investor, several investors, or take out a loan. Then use that capital to self-promote.

However, by your statements I see you are either an amateur (new to the biz), or are uneducated and ignorant. Don't take that personally, most people don't understand how the Industry works.

How does Copyright Law hurt artists?

[SonicSpike]

I fail to see your point about copyright law hurting current artists. The art is theirs, it belongs to them. The ONLY way someone else can exploit it is with the original author's permission (via a recording/publishing contract etc).

Re:How does Copyright Law hurt artists?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The ONLY way someone else can exploit it is with the original author's permission (via a recording/publishing contract etc).

If a person has you beaten up by thugs every day until you sign over the rights to your music, what's the problem? I mean, you gave them permission to use the music, right?

The RIAA does not have people beaten (as far as I know) but they do break the law by illegally and artificially restricting the market with their cartel. They have been convicted numerous times. They are preventing artists from reaching their audiences by illegally restricting access to the distribution chains. They use this illegal action to coerce artists into handing over the rights to their works. Get it?

Re:How does Copyright Law hurt artists?

[SonicSpike]

That might have been true 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago.

But now ANYONE can record, duplicate, and distribute their music very easily. With broadband almost everywhere, it only takes a few seconds to d/l a single, and a few minutes to download an album. With recording equipment being very prolific and MySpace's popularity the labels are losing (I would say have already lost) their death grip on distribution to the public.

I work in the Industry, and I agree the labels are very cut-throat and slimy, perhaps even illegal at times. But I think the convictions you are talking about are more about price-fixing and the co-op advertsing deals.

Check out:
http://www.musiccdsettlement.com/english/default.h tm

Re:How does Copyright Law hurt artists?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But now ANYONE can record, duplicate, and distribute their music very easily.

Bzzzzzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing. The online market is a tiny portion of the market as a whole. The retail chains are still locked up. Can the average person sell at Walmart? I didn't think so. There is great potential with new distribution methods, but also a lot of pressure to control those new distribution methods. Time will tell if the cartel loses its grip.

I think the convictions you are talking about are more about price-fixing and the co-op advertsing deals.

The advertising deals, the Clearchannel crap, and a dozen things they probably will never be convicted of. It all adds up to a grim situation for the average musician who wants to be heard by a large, national audience. It is all well and good to look hopefully to the future, but that does not mitigate the poor choices musicians have to make right now.

Re:How does Copyright Law hurt artists?

[SonicSpike]

I think you are a bit confused. WalMart only carries a very very very VERY small fraction of albums released each year. Granted those releases often (but not always) generate $$millions for the Industry, but in terms of quantity of albums released, WalMart is a very small selection.

As far as distribution methods, do you really think that someone can stop MySpace, BitTorrent, LimeWire, P2P etc? Or what about other independent websites, or Internet radio? And actually, now with the Internet, it is easier than EVER for a musician or act to be heard by a nationaal or even an international audience.

I'd say that the labels are on the downside of their death grip on distribution. I work in the industry and also have a degree in it. I live in Nashville and see this stuff on a daily basis.

Re:How does Copyright Law hurt artists?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think you are a bit confused. WalMart only carries a very very very VERY small fraction of albums released each year.

So? Walmart is the single largest retailer of music worldwide. They sell more music than any other company in the world.

As far as distribution methods, do you really think that someone can stop MySpace, BitTorrent, LimeWire, P2P etc?

Why does anyone need to? Those sites still account for a tiny fraction of music distribution and an even tinier amount of sales. And sales is what we're talking about; the ability to reach an audience and survive on the profits.

I'd say that the labels are on the downside of their death grip on distribution.

Maybe, we shall see what they do to lock it up online as time progresses. Claims, however, that they are losing their grip are more than a little premature.

Re:How does Copyright Law hurt artists?

[SonicSpike]

Well, if you are talking about "surviving on the profits" that is an entirely different situation entirely.

It is harder and harder to actually make a profit on recorded music these days. This includes everyone from bar bands, indipendent labels, and even the Big 5/4/3/whomever they are these days.

The industry has been transitioning from one phase to another recently. Originally the recordings were designed to promote the live shows. That changed with Sgt. Pepper/Beatles and until very recently, the biz model was cenetered aronud the recordings. Now with the Net that is starting to change back to where the recordings are starting to support the live shows.

But here is a hint. Unless you are Elton John, Greenday, Madonna, Metallica etc, you generally WON'T make any profit from your recordings. Everyone else other than the top %.01 can only make money off of their live shows, publishing deals, and licensing for film/games/commercials.

Re:I cannot believe I'm defending the Backstreet B

[Anonymous Coward]

"So what! They worked for a company, performed a service, brought in millions in revenue. Why shouldn't they be paid for it?"

You can ask that same question for a lot of other workers, for example, engineers.

Ever seen the 'ego-loaded names scrolling around' (ok, bad english) on the screen after a movie? Would you like to see the same on your Nokia/Motorola phone?

Like they had a choice!

[News Is Good For Me!]

I mean, the RIAA Probably pushed them, and threatened them with lawsuits!!