Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Artist Royalties Lowered
laughingcoyote writes "The RIAA has asked the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower royalties paid to publishers and songwriters. They're specifically after digital recordings, and uses like cell phone ringtones. They say that the rates (which were placed in 1981) don't apply the same way to new technologies."
From the article: "According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music."
One would hope that all those artists who've been letting themselves get used by the RIAA in their anti-piracy campaign get a good look at this.
...when the RIAA claims to do anything in the future for the sake of artists. They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Rates of $15 per CD don't apply the same way with new technologies either, so it should be more like $3-4 per CD.
What? Ohhh, my bad. These rules don't apply to the RIAA - just to everyone else they screw over.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
The royalty schedule was implemented to encourage artists to continue with music by being able to make a reasonable living of the trade. These payments were increased so that the artists would actually receive money, instead of constantly owing the recording companies and thus being enslaved by them. The companies also, for years, "enslaved" the songwriters by signing them to publishing contracts, then claiming the works as IP. This is why I support independent musicians and songwriters. By lowering the royalties that are currently being paid, grudgingly by the recording companies to the artists involved, would be yet another huge backward step in the creative arts. Quite sad to see these sort of things in the works. I hope those pushing for the reductions fail in their quest. Would also be great if it was reversed, and increases in royalties paid to the artists resulted.
But with the same argumentation, wouldn't one then also come to the conclusion that CD prices are massively inflated, as are prices for the DRM-laden digital variants?
Then I read the referenced article.
I owe the editors an apology for my mistaken assumption.
From TFA:
In other words, the RIAA has actually admitted what most Slashdotters have know all along - their crusade is concerned strictly with the "revenues for music publishers", and if enhancing said revenues means screwing the artists, then so be it.
Another point: "...so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings...". Since when did record companies start creating anything? They take the creations of the artists, slap their name on them, and bleed off the majority of the profits for themselves.
I thought that the RIAA couldn't possibly sink any lower - looks like I was wrong.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
When music creation becomes unprofitable, only those who seek to do it out of love will persist.
I really think that we'll see an improvement in the quality of music as a result of this.
Less look fast, more go fast.
Yes, but they like to use the artists for sympathy in their anti-piracy propaganda. But don't take my word for it, check out this page on their website where we have the following (emphasis added):
So yes, they DO claim they're doing this for the sake of the artists, you and the grandparent are both correct. The RIAA are claiming to be fighting piracy at least partially for the artists' benefit (although note it says "perhaps most importantly" about the artists) while at the same time trying to stab the artists in the back (again) by lowering their royalties even though they say that 95% of artists depend on those royalties to make a living. That last bit about artists' reputations suffering from sales of inferior quality pirated copies is kinda questionable in this day and age. A pirated CD should sound the same as the real thing, sometimes better since they'll remove any DRM crap from it.
Personally I don't see how they do it, having a soul-ectomy must be a job requirement.
Well, when they're done fucking the artists, at least there's nowhere else for them to turn.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
The major labels had a legitimate niche back when it took a massive distibution network to press an artists records and deliver them to record stores across the world. Today, distribution is a non-issue. It used to take massive ammounts of money to produce a good recording. Today, all the equipment that is required can be bought for less than a modest car. In fact, many major label recordings made today are of substantially lower quality than those of independants. It's not just the equipment, but the people using it. If upper-management orders the knob-jockeys to "make it louder" that's what they do, even if it means mixing tracks so hot that they clip continually. The labels remain the masters of big-budget promotion, but some bands have managed to be successful as independants with a tiny fraction of the promotion budget that a major label band gets. How do they do it? Make good music.
In all honesty, the labels aren't good for consumers. They stifle creativity and promote the stagnation of musical forms by promoting "safe" music over the innovative. This is why a top-40 music station sounds so homogenous whether it's playing pop-country, pop-rock, or pop-rap. Instead of promoting original artists, they hire 40 year old men to write songs about a teenage girl's life, hire a model who can't sing to sing those songs, and then digitally correct the tone-deaf waif's caterwallings in much the same way they air-brush away her zits and about 40 pounds. Then they promote this manufactured crap so heavily that it squeezes good music into the musical margins of life.
The labels aren't good for artists. Only a tiny percentage of artists signed to major labels ever make a profit. Most wind up in debt to the labels with no control over the rights to their own creations. Is the purpose of a record label to make money for itself or is it to make money for the artists? In the past RIAA has argued that artists provide a service, much like recording engineers or the squeegee monkeys that keep the windows of the exec's corner offices clean. They pay their lawyers better than 99.999% of their artists. Those lawyers enforce a copyright system designed to pump money into those corner offices at any cost. One of the costs happens to be the freedom of artists. Take the amen break for example. A whole musical genre grew up around a single sample made 40 years ago because the copyright on it was never enforced. What legally aborted genres might exist today were it not for the labels' lawyers?
Personally, I think RIAA and the major labels know all this. They know they have no legitimate role to play in distribution. They know they manufacture and promote crap because promoting original music carries risk. They screw the artists both financially and creatively. On some level, although they'd never admit it, they even realize that the labels are, at the most fundamental level, only there to get the music from the artist to the consumer and the money from the consumer to the artist. They're middlemen and they know it.
How do you improve any business transaction for both the consumer and the supplier? Cut out the middlemen.
Each sale by a pirate probably does represent a lost legitimate sale. If you are willing to give a pirate money, then you would probably be willing to give the artist that money (ethical concerns of paying the RIAA aside). It is somewhat misleading, because very few people actually buy pirate CDs. It is also misleading, because it ignored fact that part of the reason that it represents a lost sale is that the official CD is so overpriced people don't consider it worth purchasing.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Since when did so many ppl start calling Green Day and James Blunt artists? Before it was only people in the industry, but now it's filtered through the radio down to us. It's ridiculous, this ain't Pablo Picasso or Banksy we're talking about. It's a play by the RIAA to make people consider the creative talents of those divine people (jonny borrel, pete doherty) who make the music we listen to. And while we worship them, treating as gold their invaluable educated views on such issues as fiscal policy and nanotechnology, the RIAA will use their talents as justification to extend copyrights indefinately, and fuck with royalties for those less powerful.
When you say artists, I think you're talking about sculptors, architects and painters. Our english language has a word for people who make music: musicians (which contains composers, instrumentalists and singers). I understand there exist some genius (and under-rated) musicians whose fabulous talent is a blessing to our world, and deserve to be referred to alongside of da Vinci and their work compared to Guenica, but there is a lot of shit on the radio that is not original, made by people who are not talented. An excuse for music, it isn't art for sure.
To illustrate this ludicrousity, just go check out some profiles on deviantART (if you don't know it, it houses some fantastic photography, painting, sculpture and drawing). Read someone's profile and beneath "favourite styles of art: painting, tapestry" you can read on so many profiles "favourite artists: green day, fall out boy" , "favourite artists: james blunt, spice girls". It hurts to think about what these people were thinking they were being asked.
So please, call U2 a band and Bono a musician.
reputations, which are damaged by the inferior quality of pirated copies sold to the public
Yet out of one of the other mouths they've been claiming for years that "piracy" is affecting them so broadly because of the perfect nature of said pirated copies. Someone point me again to that section in US Code that legislates a guaranteed revenue stream for the recording industry?
This truly makes me furious. This is just one reason I've chosen to stay independent. Granted the only choices I've had were smaller labels like Grey Flat and Saddle Creek. This is truly a disgusting move by the RIAA. It's not bad enough they're making the publicity stunt lawsuits against perpetrators of free advertising (file downloaders), now they need to cut even more from their artists. Just like when the MPAA started their "want a backup copy? buy one." comments in press meetings, this makes me want to remember to "engage in piracy." Thank you, Capitalism. Thank you.
Let me get this straight - record industry profits were devasted when profits from 'innovative services' dramatically grew ?
Talk about contradicting yourself.
Just think one day the artists and the fans might connect directly on the internet with no middle man in between to screw the artists and sue the fans.
That day has already arrived, and it has brought little change. We already have lots of artists, mainly the kind who can't get signed up by a record label, who publish their work online. It is only the tiny minority that get signed up by a major record label that we hear about though, and they are precisely the ones who will not 'cut out the middleman', because for them, the RIAA actually do provide a service: they advertise and brainwash the public into liking those choice few artists who are blessed with RIAA's stamp, leading to a tiny minority of artists making virtually all of the income in the music industry. How many artists are played on MTV? Not many.
[The RIAA's] greed will be their undoing. I wonder why it hasn't been their undoing in the past though?
The problem is that the public is very easily controlled by advertising and the media. So long as that is true, the RIAA will be able to create a few 'big acts', and to get the public to listen only to them. A few 'big acts' are easily controlled by the RIAA, especially since those acts will only make money as long as the public is convinced that they like them - which is the only thing the RIAA is good at.
In this media-driven age, I don't expect things to change anytime soon. But yes, cheap recording and publishing technology is helpful, even if only in a small way.
"Try before you buy" is my philosphy too, but that model relies only on one's intellectual honesty, that makes you actually buy the product after a short period of "trying". But most people just "try and never buy"...
I don't use them myself as I don't like using the phone in general, but I hear enough of other peoples ring tones to know:
There is not enough of a tone sequence to pay a royality on. Only enough to play the game "what ring tone is that from?"
Seriously, it may just barely step over the copyright line by linke three notes of something BUT there is the fair use clause.
And considering the most useful thing about ring tones is having a different one than everyone else around you, its not like they are of much valueto share.
Maybe you have collectors of ring tone (like you did with amiga mod files - but even then a mod file is at least a whole song) and perhaps The RIAA should push legistration for requiring collectors to register (get a collector license) or something.
Another thought is that ring tone users, should charge the RIAA for using their phone as an advertising media, like ads on your web site and getting paid for clicks...
But in no case should RIAA be able to use ring tones as an excuse to lower the royalities the artist get. If anythinhg they shoul increase them if they are not paying the phone users for advertising space.
Somebody really needs to lay it all out and really slap the RIAA down via exposure of their hyporacies.
To be clear, there is no reason with todays technology to subsidize new band promotional risks with the profits off the successful artist (one of the reason we having had enough real creativity on the air). What this means is that the profits/finances the record industry needed in the past to bring new artists to the public with hope the public will buy, doesn't need to be spent today as the internet is alot less expensive and artist can themselves get a following to prove themselves and have bargaining power with any contract they might sign with a label. The fact they did it themselves should show they are serious and business oriented. This path greatly reduces the need to subsidize and mean the successful artist should get more... not less (as they are not helping tro pay for other unknow artist to be market tested)
Maybe that is the problem here! Maybe the new technology is resulting in successful artist annual income to be raising and the RIAA figures it can take some of it but need an excuse (and we all know they do make use of excuses/lies to support their claims).
That isn't even the issue. The real problem (and this applies to any organization, company or "industry trade group" that lobbies successfully for bad law) is the amount of damage they will do the to the economic and legal systems of our country while they're on the way down. The DMCA alone, passed at the behest of the MPAA for the most part, has to be one of the worst pieces of legislation to pass out of Congress in decades, given the bloody trail of frivolous lawsuits left in its wake. I submit that America can no longer afford to have these billion-dollar parasites exerting undue influence upon our elected representatives.
... they aren't some national treasure that must be protected at all costs. They're a bunch of self-serving corporate assholes who don't care who they hurt and yes, that includes the oh-so-important "artists": you know, the creative types whom the labels claim to "represent." Frankly, that kind of representation I could certainly live without.
The music studios are capitalist to a degree but they are most certainly unenlightened capitalists. They don't acknowledge, under any conditions, that any other entity, private or corporate, should be permitted to compete with them. And when they can't use their anticompetitive market practices to guarantee control of product distribution, they start whining and lying, and then they head for Washington and get some more protectionlist laws passed without regard for any collateral damage. I'm really getting sick of these people
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Take a look at the subject and author. Maybe this was suppose to be sarcasm. Either that or COMPLETELY stupid.
Don't do drugs....
It's about the marketing machine, not the actual process of printing and shipping CDs to stores anymore. Those costs are cheaper than ever, what's really driving up the cost for the industry is similar to what's driving up the costs for professional sports, salary and marketing costs. In order to get the 'next big thing', companies have to pay more and more to sign established and even 'up and coming' artists to bigger and bigger contracts. They also have to pay for the ever increasing costs to pay radio stations to play their tunes (i know it's illegal, but you know they do it) and get their artists on MTV. The ever increasing costs of filming music videos (you think those girls shake their ass at you for free?) And since the 'artists' are getting less and less talented, the production costs are going higher and higher as well. And that is one thing that iTune and all the internet technology can not change.
The establishment has the connection with radio, magazine, and TV to promote their artists, and they want to get paid for spending millions of dollars on marketing their products. It's no different from fashion industry or any other marketing driven companies, they sell stuff by making it artificially popular. For me, this is no different from talking with their suppliers (artist) to cut down the cost.
about the way the music industry is set up right now is why the artists are paid by the distributors as opposed to the other way around. The artists have created the music and should have full control over what happens to that music. They should be paying the distributors/production companies/etc. to handle the things they do.
As I see it, and this may just be the way I buy music, the reason I buy or don't buy music is because I like the artist, or I have heard something from them and want to hear more. I don't buy an artist because Sony or BMG is distributing it (although that may make me not want to buy an artist's CD). The recording industry should be paid for the service they provide and the artists should be the ones in the drivers seat. If the artist doesn't want full control, well thats what agents are for, right?
Clones are people two.
I have often wondered why the recording industry, faced with increasing competition from other distribution technologies, has not concluded that "recording" no longer is a viable business today.
Because they're making a huge profit?
Because "new distribution technologies" is a thorn they faced before, and successfully got on the side of the law?
Because the current law has adopted to aid their business model?
Because, when you get right down to it, someone barely paying you for your work is better than someone NOT paying you for your work?
My father plays percussion in one of the worlds leading orchestras. Growing up I was exposed to and learned to enjoy orchestral music; I still do to this day. There is a lot of it out there, but most of the time the major orchestras play a small repertoire; Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, etc. The big names, the things that have been played over and over again. I remember asking him one day, "Why does the orchestra play all this stuff over and over again? Sure, this is good music, but don't people get bored with the same thing over and over again?"
I was told, "There is a saying in the music industry: The audience eats shit."
And it does - to someone who appreciates the 'finer, more nuanced, less well known' areas of an art form. Music, like any art form, has a certain section that appeals the masses; A very small section at that. The casual audience doesn't have the patience or interest to delve deeper most of the time. They have something that makes them happy and they are content with that.
Let's take everyone's "Lave Her" or "Hate Her" 'musician': Britney Spears. Have you ever heard her sing? I watched an interview of her a few years back and she was asked to sing solo. No backup, no music, no effects to cover her voice. It was absolutely atrocious. That doesn't matter though; She performs well enough on stage, and combined with the marketing and enough makeup on her voice to make it acceptable, people are happy with 'her' product. "Enough ketchup and even my mother's cooking is edible."
Personally, I wouldn't even take an album of hers for free. I don't consider it art; I consider it boring, unimaginative, repetitive, and headache-inducing. Ultimately, though, I don't think that it is within the power of a few individuals to determine what 'art' is, except for themselves. It is society's job to determine what is art to society.
Unfortunately (in my opinion), Britney Spears, 50 Cent, Snoop Dog, etc. are all considered artists in society right now. That doesn't matter though; Nobody is holding me captive and forcing me to listen to their product.
Love sees no species.
The average band makes maybe roughly 1-2$ per CD sold. FEW artists sell as much as 10,000 of an album. Take those say 20,000 dollars and for conversations sake divide it by the 3-5 band members. Yeah, nice yearly salary. If you are lucky and skilled enough to live of being an artist you play live acts for the "steady" income and your royalites make a bonus.
For royalites to make a liveable income in it self you have to hit superstardom(Gwen stefani, metallica, etc). You would be suprised at how many of the one-hit-wonders get some bling-bling, a couple of celeb parties and end up with no cash at the end of the 15-minutes of fame.
As for the inferior quality, the RIAA should check their own mastering studios. They should be ashamed to sell audio CDs that contain clipping.
This is even more reason for having the artists and consumers connect directly. For example, go to Metallica's website, download non-drm tracks for a buck a pop or whatever, and metallica gets 100% of the money. Throw in merchandise sold directly through the same website and artists could stand to make a lot more money than with the RIAA. Yes, people will copy, put on filesharing, etc, but this has realistically been going on for ages. My friends and I used to get together for hours copying cassette tapes. I never once paid a dime for a commercially produced cassette. When cd's came out, I purchased these so that I could have a "collection" but people can copy them just as easily.
The only difference is that before you couldn't really prove or be able to tell who copied that cassette tape. With the internet, you are given away by your ip address, giving the RIAA a basis to sue, and I fully believe it is simply to use their legal muscle to gain even more cash through the legal system.
I got nothin'
Wow, usually when someone tries to screw every party in an attempt to line their pockets, they tell the artists that they are trying to make more moeny, so they can give more to the artists, and they tell the consumer that they are trying to lower prices so they can be competitive
Not here, however. Now they are pretty honest about their intentions. They want to give those who produce music the shaft on what they consider to be their biggest money-maker, and they are doing it so they can make more money...No noble intent, no "starving people in Hollywood" scenarios...just greed... I wonder if the brief ever mentioned the RIAA's desire to do a Scrooge McDuck-style swim in a pool full of money...
The recording industry is a bunch of middle-men, plain and simple. They are trying to screw artists and collect taxes on everything related to music, because they know that the only thing they have going for them is that their parent companies own the music stores, which are, also, not doing very well.
what is to stop Sally Sandbone from taking the Latest Madonna (or other) song and calling it her own?
Copyright law.
Who is going to go after the protection of content for the content provider?
The original artist's attorney? The RIAA is not required to enforce copyright law. In fact, they probably aren't going to come to the rescue of the "lowly" pianists at Nordstrom's. (I say this being a working musican for the past 25yrs.) The RIAA does not protect content creators! They are only concerned with stockholders profits. This article is a prime example of that fact."Oh, what sad times these are when passing ruffians can say 'ni' to helpless old ladies."
The problem is that the public is very easily controlled by advertising and the media. So long as that is true, the RIAA will be able to create a few 'big acts', and to get the public to listen only to them.
The internet where everyone is a publisher is changing the landscape. There are a few acts everyone is familiar with even though they got no MTV or Clearchannel airtime. My Space, YouTube, Google Video, and others are starting to give the cartel a run for the money.
Are you still doubting? Ever heard of the Numa Numa guy? Has he ever been on MTV or a Clear Channel station?
How about the dancing baby?, the Badger or Lama song?
The truth shall set you free!
What do you mean "now?" The RIAA has worked contrary to the interests of artists for decades--possibly since their inception. They're a parasitic organisation that steals money from creative people.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
So, what they're saying is something like: "Our old business model of raping and pillaging artists and selling their work at hyper-inflated prices to a consumer public that has very few other choices, most fairly difficult to do, if they want music, is failing miserably. So we've started finding new ways to sell the same media in ways that the consumer public, once again, has very few other choices with, most fairly difficult to do, which lets our old business model live for a few more years while the public again finds a way to circumvent paying us through the nose for the labors of others. Somehow we think this means that we should pay our indentured serv... ah, that is to say the artists - you know, the guys who we keep claiming are the ones hurt by piracy, even though nearly all musicians who make a lot of money do so primarily with live performance, a format which is inherently unpiratable and has seen absolutely no loss of profitability - deserve to be paid less for their hard work. We justify this with the fact that Chewbacca is a 7' Wookie, and Endor is populated with Ewoks, and that doesn't make any sense. Seriously."
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Wow, Metallica finally learned? Took them long enough. Remember, they were the original artists FOR DRM based music and FOR strict control over their music and even FOR the RIAA. It would seem somebody has changed their tunes. Finally...
Yes, their margins are "low" at 2%/8%, but low margins does no refute a claim that they are making a "huge profit." Using your reference, warner claimed $3,500,000,000.00 in revenue last year, or (on a 2% profit margin) $70,000,000.00 in profit.
Of course they claim to have earned $1,690,000,000.00 in (gross) profit this year, just a few lines down from their revenue statement. Margins are only important when they begin to scrape around the 1-0% ratio (or lower) where they are spendng nearly as much as they take in. On a buisiness that focuses on volume, margins don't need to be high. Look at wal-mart.
-GiH
What ever happened to people making money from gigs? When I was in bands, we used to give away our CDs (in the early 90s mainly) and make $$ from gigs. Bands like Metallica also used to advocate copying their music as the more people that heard the music, more people went to gigs (where the real money is for artists). Does anyone actually like to gig anymore?
That's a misrepresentation of Metallica's position. Metallica has always had a relaxed attitude towards bootlegs. They even allowed people to plug their tape recorders into the mixing desk at concerts. They just asked that nobody copied their studio recorded music - you know, the recordings that are an expense to Metallica and their primary means of income. I considered it a reasonable request at the time; they weren't saying you couldn't make your own MP3s, or even trade their bootlegs, only that you didn't trade the studio recordings.
Metallica was one of the first bands to offer high quality digital content to their fans, as a bonus download off their website when you bought their CDs. They have made available video and music files recorded at their concerts, all for free. They publish a huge quantity of material; a balance of music, video, movies and other paraphenalia that rewards those fans who want to know more about Metallica. Their concerts are amazing value for money; high energy and extremely well produced. Metallica treat their fans very well. In return they ask that you don't rip them off.
The meme that "Metallica is anti MP3" is up there with "Gore invented the Internet" and "sue McDonalds for making coffee". It's a stupid lie that just won't die.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Filesharers are screwing the musicians like the chinese people built the great wall against mongols and huns.
The chinese have been depriving the invading hordes from their God given profit. The Raiding Industry Association of Mongolia was heard commenting thusly: "But, but, no raping and pillaging and plundering? They are stealing our IP - Indigenous Property. Remember, every unharmed chinese is a lost looting opportunity for us."
Copyright is wastly backwards thinking and harmful for our society. Taking a more serious note for a bit, copyright reminds me of an old hungarian law.
One of our kings in 1351 created the law of aviticum. It banned any kind of sale/transfer of land, ownership was on hereditary basis. In those times it actually was for a good reason - to prevent the fragmentation of the country and to prevent a stronger lord from coercing a smaller one, in other words to reduce infighting. This law remained in effect until 1848. By that time it was a big problem for more than a century, as it prevented any kind of capitalistic development.
Copyright is actually worse. It not only does not have a reason to exist, not only is it detrimental, but it has been made worse since the 18th century in relation to the purpose it served.
In today's world there are no extraordinary costs to publish something. Distribution costs - which copyright was intended to overcome - are much smaller today, down to next to nothing with digital distribution. The only incentive should be the demand of the free market, there is no need for the government to step in anymore. Monopoly is bad and it is hurting us. Important parts of our culture are lost and we're only beginning to feel its effects now. Copyright rests on a false assumption, that you're creating something. You're not creating, you're improving on/evolving something, unless you want to reinvent the wheel all the time.
The impossibility to create derivative works is hurting us. The trivial example is what Walt Disney could do in the 20s, we cannot do now. It is hard to imagine the extent of harm we're experiencing due to copyright.
If we would draw a parallel to the world of mathematics, if you would have to restart from scratch all the time, if you would have to use different methods for solving problems than the optimal because that is forbidden to us, etc. That is the state copyright pushed what falls under it. Time to get rid of this archaic shit too.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
This is just the RIAA attempting to rein in yet more control of the artists under their power. The movie studios in the 20's and 30's did the same thing to thier artists before the the actors finally stood up to the studios and formed the precursor to SAG and brought the studio system to its knees. Perhaps this is what is needed in the music industry now. If the musicians and artists took a stand and united against the RIAA perhaps they would actually get fair monies for their talent, own their own music, and not have to be contracted for pennies while the Labels make millions on their names.
-my drachma
-Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
If getting paid a little for your work rather than nothing is an acceptable model then something else is wrong with the artists. The artists need to find a way to rid themselves of the RIAA. The way the RIAA does it should be the exception for the artists, not the rule.
The artists already pay for everything from manufacturing, to office work, to supplies, everything. If they make any money the RIAA takes it. The only time they make money is when they are a big hit. They are just stealing more money from those that might make a profit. It basically puts an artists/band longer in the red. That's why they gave contracts to so many musicians. They knew the musicians would have to pay them back even if the albums failed. This just holds back the possibility of going into the black.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.