Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Songwriter Royalty Lowered
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Lest there be anyone left who believes the RIAA's propaganda that its litigation campaign is intended to benefit the 'creators' of the music, Hollywood Reporter reports that the RIAA is asking the Copyright Royalty Board to lower songwriter royalties on song file downloads, from the present rate of 9 cents per song — about 13% of the wholesale price — down to 8% of wholesale. Meanwhile, the big digital music companies, such as Apple, want the royalty rate lowered even more, to something like 4% of wholesale. So any representations by any of these companies that they are concerned for the 'creators' of the music must henceforth be taken with a boxcar-load of salt."
that anyone had any doubt that the RIAA were anything but money-grubbing middlemen.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
i think the subject really says enough about what i think...
Well you know there's less profit in downloaded music. (PS: They're paranoid about loosing the distribution channels They're paranoid about loosing the distribution channels They're paranoid about loosing the distribution channels
Why is the RIAA even able to set any sort of financial policy for its parent companies? I thought it was just a big bunch of lawyers! Should not each recording studio set compensation based on the contracts it signs with the artists?
I eagerly await the insightful words of Lars Ulrich, Dr. Dre, et al to explain to me why pissing off the people who were perfectly willing to pony up good money for concerts, T-shirts and, yes, full retail priced CDs was worth it in the end.
why? forty-two.
Stupid pigopolists. Aren't they supposed to be on the artists' side? This blatant money-grab is just one more nail in their coffin. More artists will find ways to sell directly to the public, or form their own collectives with their own interests at heart. Of course, that's how the RIAA started, but it is well past its usefulness and needs to be replaced.
It's so fun to watch a cartel devour itself.
The RIAA has come a long way since they were setup to regulate and maintain the technical standards on how vinyl records should be manufactured. Hopefully they will go the way of the vinyl record real soon...
Lest anyone be at all surprised, remember that RIAA stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. It represents the record companies, and that's all it represents. If these companies could find some legal way to hold a gun to a songwriter's or musician's head and take their work at gunpoint, they'd do it.
I'm not going to insist that digital downloads are the future and that all artists should follow Radiohead's lead, but any artists who care at all about their future had damn well better examine every single alternative when figuring out how to produce and distribute their music. Things are changing, and you can be sure that the record companies are going to be looking out for their best interests. Artists had better do the same, or they're going to get screwed.
This is too funny they want more money in compensation for each illegaly downloaded file yet want to give less to the artists that make it...
...because they're going about the right way of lowering the loyalty rate of artists and customers alike.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Considering the quality of "songs" being "sung" by pop "artists", not sure if this would work.
If I can do it, its probably not worth doing... probably
'"Fundamentally, this fragile marketplace is showing signs of promise, but it cannot be saddled with additional, excessive costs," DiMA wrote. "The board should be careful not to impose a royalty that kills the proverbial goose and deprives songwriters and publishers of their golden egg."'
A little nugget of FUD to mask the fact that digital downloads are going to render obsolete their entire middleman operation.
Imagine if musicians had to pay out of pocket for every song that was distributed, say one cent per track. On the one hand, they'd be angry because it would mean that they would have to pay a lot if their songs reached a lot of people. But on the other, it would also be an indication of their popularity and the money to be made on concerts and schwag. This is analogous to what a web author has to deal with when his site hits the big time. And yet, web authors can usually figure out how to monetize the publicity and pay for the traffic. The fact that music could even make musicians money if they had to pay people to take their music sheds some light on the outdated nature of the industry.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the RIAA essentially a representative group formed with the intent of pushing forward goals and legal issues for the major record labels?
If so, then they are doing an admirable job of inspiring people to direct ire and hared towards the constructed organisation rather than to the parent companies.
It isn't often that I see people complaining about Sony or BMG (Comparatively speaking).
It always seems to come down to that nasty RIAA.
Well done indeed.
Put nothing in, get nothing out. Don't expect results without incentive. This is why crap pop music will be propagated until the eventual demise of the RIAA. ...Although given the chance, most unknown artists these days would still sign with a label, despite their extortion-based methodology. By lowering the already measly writer/composer rates, the RIAA only shoots themselves in the foot. Lowering royalties only nudges artists towards self-distribution. I've heard CDBaby and other similar sites make it easy to do.
In this age of digital distribution and cheap widespread publishing, can the RIAA really afford to scare off and offend songwriters?
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
The H1B issue is the same way: lobbyists squirm and wiggle to bend statistics and magnify (or make up) anecdotes to sell the idea that there are not enough citizen programmers or not good enough citizen programmers and therefore the industry needs H1B's in order to prevent an economic collapse. It is all just a ploy to get cheaper labor. This is what happens when business lobbyists have more power over legislators than voters. It's that simple.
Table-ized A.I.
I feel rather lonely here in my boycott of the RIAA. Is RIAA-brand pop music really that deeply ingrained into our culture that people aren't willing to live without it?
Apparently so. Magnatune doesn't seem to be growing much. And Big Labels are still raking in millions.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
It would be great if there was a central site where artists could register to receive donations/payments that their fans wanted to give them in exchange for getting their music from an unofficial source, or just as a sign of appreciation.
Say if you wanted Artist X's new album, but your preferred music store doesn't have it - you could just download it from any P2P site, then donate the recommended amount to them through this site.
Now the record companies, who created the internet and invented downloading music and streaming audio, have seen their take of the pie stay the same, whilst freeloading music creators are actually making more.
I shall write to Orrin Hatch about this...
or put it up on their site for 15 cents a song, they'd earn way more than they do now. I mean, as of now, is RIAA of any value to the society at all?
-Karthik
And boy are we in for some great tunes if these "ideas" become reality.
I mean... it sure is funny to see life imitating art, but life imitating Stallone SF action movies?
Cause if this takes hold, how long till the radio jingles become a more popular form of entertainment then "popular" music?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I bet that the prices for the songs won't be lowered as a result...
Is the songwriter the only artist who is compensated for the download? Is the performing artist or band also compensated, and if so by how much? As much as I don't like the RIAA, I also want to understand the surrounding context. I guess the real question this begs is exactly where does all the money go?
Isn't the whole point of "take it with a grain of salt" that a grain of salt is basically worthless? A more emphatic version should be something like "take it with a nanogram of salt" or something.
Now the RIAA is a bunch of money grubbing pricks, but I can't believe Apple would have anything to do with ... HEY LOOK! OMG! New AirBooks are OUT!!!
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
...if you've ever found yourself saying (or typing) something like:
Even if you've never written the above, you've probably read it here on /., on a daily basis.
Well, there you have it. Maybe the pirates are right, and music does have to be $0.25 a track. And (statistics aside), perhaps artists do make too much. Either way, right or wrong... the pirates have spoken: music costs too much. Artists are overpaid. So sayeth the pirates, and they're a mighty force.
The pro-piracy crowd has been one of the biggest opponents of DRM. And the record labels are listening... DRM is becoming less restrictive and going away. The pro-piracy crowd has bemoaned the lack of selection on the legal stores vs. what's available on P2P. Apple listened... their catalog is now in the tens of millions.
Perhaps retailers like Apple, and the record labels are listening to the pirates yet again. Along with feeling the heat from Amazon, they're capitulating to demands that music prices be lowered. I don't think we'll see $0.25 in our lifetimes (so, many people will opt to continue to pirate), but cutting costs will make it easier to sustain $0.79.
And if you're one of the folks who pirate because your perception of artists is that they are overpaid millionaires... then this may be good news to you even if it doesn't result in lower prices.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
They should write songs because they love it, not because they get paid. SONGS WANT TO BE FREE! FREE THE SONGS!
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
I'm just curious, because as long as I diligently download my 40 songs per month, I pay $.25 per song. How is that quarter carved up, or are they actually losing money on me?
Of course, streaming internet radio is quite different than music sales.
Nails frontman [Trent Reznor] urges fans to steal music
"Steal it. Steal away. Steal, steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealing," Reznor, who has been dubbed the Ralph Nader of the music industry, said.
Steal NIN music too? He steals he says. Read that article. Interesting.
How to Download YouTube Videos
From now on, I'm pirating everything, and I'll mail some money to the band.
I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA would be quite happy if the "artists" would do as they're told, the "consumers" would buy whatever's being sold at the price offered, the internet would go away and everyone would simply shut the hell.
I'm sure they would enjoy their huge salaries and bonuses much more without all the whining.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Is it every worth it to stand up for the right thing, even if its going to cost you money? He wasn't wrong legally or morally just financially. Which one is more important to you?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Just when one thought the RIAA couldn't be any more greedy it proves us wrong. As if it wasent bad enough they make 95% of the profit from cds when they cost like 20 cents to make and sell for 10-20 bucks. Clearly they have to rob the artists from their work even when they have to do little to nothing for internet downloads.... A band is most likely better off bypassing the BS like radiohead did, so they can see a reasonable share of the profit made by their work.
Wow. God really hates poor Britney.
They want the 4% royalty rate for STREAMING... IE internet radio, which right now is treated much different than terrestrial radio where the songwriter gets practically nothing for. They are saying that they shoudlnt be treating internet radio as if it is somehow different than normal over the air.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Cutting 13% down to 8% is a 38% reduction.
So everyone else's cut is going up, even though the songwriter's costs and work are the same. But the rest of the "value" chain to the consumer (which now is composed mostly of the consumer, recommending and trying to share the content) is drastically reduced in cost and increased in availability of inventory (which was typically paid off according to plan many years ago).
--
make install -not war
Are you actually recommending the music industry goes to an advertising supported model, or are you pointing out the fact that one industry figured out a business model proves that every other unrelated industry can too?
I have no Idea how the Nobel economic prise committee overlooked your work this year, the fools!
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Come on, guys! If they would pay last royalties, this means the songs will be cheaper, right?
</sarcasm>
Who wrote this crap? Its "songwriters and publishers" not just song writers. The whole pennies analogy is completely misrepresented because publishers get a sizable share too.
If the story is worthwhile, you dont have to exaggerate.
For This Reason, New Media Players (Apple, Yahoo, Napster, etc) argue that the "mechanical royalty for copyright" should be lowered significantly on digital downloads (specifically, to 4%).
RIAA etc argue the fee should be dropped only slightly (specifically, only to 8%).
RIAA are arguing to maintain profits for their (arguably, exceedingly dinosaur-like) "distribution model".
"While record companies have been forced to drastically cut costs and employees, music publisher catalogs have increased in value due to
The New Media crew are arguing the way of sanity and intelligence. (ie trying to push the 'downloads are effectively performances, because there's no way to differentiate' argument)
New-media companies want the rate to go even lower, contending that it should disappear when music is digitally streamed.
Every time you hear something new from the RIAA it boils down to "someone needs to shovel more money into our bank accounts, without any additional effort or contribution on our part. Our business model dictates an infinitely increasing profit margin, for infinitely decreasing effort, ad-infinitum."
And the same can be said of those ISPs who intend to violate the concept of "net-neutrality". ("someone's making money , and the bits cross our network. Ignore the fact we already billed someone for those bits, I want to directly bill BOTH the producer AND the consumer of those bits, even though they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with me").
That's not a business-model, that's a fantasy.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Incorrect. Apple doesn't want to pay anything For streaming music. The 4% is for permanent digital downloads. Greedy Assholes.
Have a read of this article for more:I know you think Apple can do no wrong, but they're a company & by definition, quite ammoral.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
The wholesale price on an album is about $8.31, for an average 12 tracks per album then?
Am I the only one that thinks that's outrageous? It certainly shows how far too expensive downloadable much is. I mean, considering the RIAA attempted to convince consumers that CDs cost about $5 more than tapes to manufacture several years ago (when CDs cost this much more than tapes), and that CDs haven't really decreased in price, that means that the RIAA would need to sell the equivalent real album at about $14 wholesale. If that's how much distributors pay for CDs (not record stores) then how does anyone make any profit selling a CD? Most retail items demand at least 25% or so profit, usually a lot more for lower cost items like these!
Or, just maybe, the RIAA actually makes less money on selling the equivalent digital download as a CD? If so... ugh! But not a surprise, considering we know that the $5 "extra" they were charging difference between CDs and Tapes was BS at the time as well.
*sigh*...
REAALL COFFEEEE
From columbia....
The Duncan Hills will wake you.
From a thousand depths.
A cup of blackened blood.
(Die, die)
You're dying for a cup.
(Thanks Mr. Small and Mr. Blancha)
Ice Cream has no bones.
If only the artists would go on strike like the writers. Maybe we could thin out some of the crap on the radio these days. I hate that most new music makes me love the songs my dad sung to in the car (oldies) and that it makes me not even want to look for the few artists who have really great music.
True Capitalism - I'm talking Ayn Rand style Capitalism
Is Randian Capitalism anything like Adam Smith's Capitalism?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I mean really.
Free The Art (Sep 29/07)
Copyright 2007, drew Roberts
Free the Art and
Free the Artists
Let's break loose and
Let's get started
Change the world and
Make it better
There may be crying but
We'll cry together
Tired of waiting on
Promised changes
Come together and
Let's rearrange it
This work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License V3.0 United States
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
any representations by copyright law in general that it is concerned for the 'creators' of the music must always be taken with a boxcar-load of salt. It never has been about the 'creators'. It is and always will be about the business. If you want the hammering to stop, you just got to say "when".
What?
so long as greed, fear & ego are the driving forces, there'll be no fair day's pay for most of us. better days ahead. see you there? let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying
dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html
the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.
corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7
as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to u
Bandwidth is cheap. Sell your own music, and keep 100%.
1.The RIAA does the bidding of the industry.
2. The Industry needs a constant supply of money and steps on everybody to get it.
3. People keep buying music, which generates what the Industry needs most.
4. People also keep stealing music, which gives the RIAA the air of legitimacy.
There. If you whining little jerks can't figure this out you don't deserve help.
1. Setup Industry Body to promote and regulate music 2. Piss off your consumer base. 3. Shaft the people who create music. 4. ?? 5. Profit I don't know of any other industry that intentionally tries to shaft both its consumer and supply base like the RIAA do.
The RIAA has come a long way since they were setup to regulate and maintain the technical standards on how vinyl records should be manufactured. Hopefully they will go the way of the vinyl record real soon...
What, you want to RIAA to make revival? While CD sales are declining vinyl record sells are increasing. More and more stores are starting to carry vinyl turntables. Yes, I've noticed this as I'd like to get one myself.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It makes no sense to sign a contract with a record label and only get 10%, let alone 4%. Pressing CD's is cheap, less than a $1 a piece. Digital downloads are even cheaper still. Credit card rates can be had in the single digits.
If there was a need for any FOSS project, it would be a project that lets artists sell their music online, and simply so, so much so that ISPs could bundle it in like the way they bundle forum software or Apache.
Signing with a real label seems madness.
This is my sig.
Most large/popular websites can fall into 1 of 2 categories: 1) business ventures of some sort or 2) personal itches. I run one that falls into the second category and because I don't want my attempts at commoditization to take away from the project I foot the bill myself.
But artists are not (strictly) business people.
Gene Simmons excepted (but is that the future you'd suggest?).
Quack, quack.
For awhile there, with the OOXML, and other things, I was afraid that the big bad wolf had fallen in 'friends' with the little pigs. I thought and thought about that, and just could not get my head around it. If there is no monopoly to fight, or evildoers to rail against, life is just too surreal to contemplate. What, with people working together and profitability made second class citizen to cooperation and interoperability. Just when I was beginning to think that consistency was vanishing from the face of the earth, MS^H^H the RIAA has come to my rescue and reassured me that they are evil, and always will be. ohhh, how nice it is to know somethings will never change... I can sleep again.
quoting myself http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=442010&cid=22301682
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
the people who want to cut some of the artist support or those who steel and give the artists no support. eat it slashdot. you know you're wrong.
Brick and Mortar distribution outlets maybe.
Your quote ripped out that this position is in regard to not downloads, but to internet streaming - as the parent wrote, streaming is internet radio. And streaming audio is not a music sale.
Re-read the position paper you just quoted - it isn't to clear, but it does differentiate between download sale royalties and a streaming - and how they feel that listening to a song, like on the radio, should be billed out as a complete sale to each and every listener.
The paper does mention about how some "unfairly" want micropayments for streaming (in case a listener only tunes into 2 seconds of a song on a stream.)
The author of the position paper you quote wants 16 cents from each person that listens to 1 or more seconds of an internet radio station "airplay" - to be given to the songwriter. And nothing to the performers or others - INSANE!!!!! - and the "music consumer" owns nothing after that 1 second.
It's a good thing artists wised up and began licensing their works.
Under the current situation it might make sense to make this move by the RIAA:
1) In USA there are virtually no free media - everything is owned by one large corporation or the other
- This include radio, TV, magazines and so on - tell me one TV station or national radio station - or even a one state radio station that is independent of big companies likes of NBC, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., and so on.
2) The Internet is not yet established enough as a channel of new music
3) In the current system you need - lets say 50 000 people listening to you to break even and be able to live by the art you make, by reducing the payout this will reduce the number of artists out there who may make enough to live by making music, however as they control the media, they may increase the airtime of fewer artists making them stay firm while the rest "disappears".
4) By focusing on online media as broadcasting, thus reducing artists revenue further, they may limit the possibility even further for artists using the online media as an alternative channel.
Prepare for even more commercials in music videos etc. Artists will likely need to more frequently require brands to pay part of their initial promotion to get media attention.
Damn this was going to be my April Fools prank for the year, make up a web page that looks like cnn saying that the RIAA had lobbied for a new law which would give them fool control of artist royalties. Guess I was beaten to the punch on this one.
GCS/S d-x s+(+): a C++++$ UL+$ P+ L++$ !E--- W++@ N++>$ !o !K-- w++$ !O !M !V PS++>$ PE !Y PGP+ t+ 5++ X++ R tv b
Okay, so that covers the songwriter. How much does the performer/recording artist get?
They're not necessarily the same person.
"So any representations by any of these companies that they are concerned for the 'creators' of the music must henceforth be taken with a boxcar-load of salt.""
OK, so how much money has Piratebay* sent to the artists and why should I believe they're any more concerned for the artists than the content companies?
*Let alone ANY pirate.
Funny my captcha is hostages.
13% of a record gross?! That's huge!
The writer's guild strike is about the writer of a movie who currently makes 0.3% per DVD gross, which bless their corporate hearts will likely go up to 0.6% as a result of the strike ending (for online ad-supported streamed movies, where the distributor's production costs are about zero).
These companies are evil.
...this article isn't about the RIAA pissing off customers, it's about the RIAA pissing on artists.It is - and that's actually much better. Let's hear Lars and Dre defend this.
BTW, Lars...Dre....if by some bizarre chance you happen to read this: I Told You So. Nyah Nyah Nyah.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I doubt a boxcar load of salt is going to help deal with the smell of a boxcar load of...
--
Torodung
Hmm, a thought just occured to me. I can now see why slashdot pushes so hard for the "independent" artists. It's based upon one simple fact. Artists are represented by a big organization that can fight on their behalf against copyright violators. Independents don't have that. They don't have the money. They don't have the time. They don't have the expertise. Truely a win, win for anyone going for "information wants to be free".
At first reading I read "be taken with a boxcar-load of shit"...Just goes to show what word is in my head when RIAA is in the title.
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
What the RIAA fails to realize is that all of the songs are already free on Limewire ;-)
(P.S. I'm an artist myself, honestly, I think the artists should get more money not less)
Obama = Socialism.
Price fixing
That is the "settlement" that isn't worth a shit...So much for abiding by the law.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
the article only mentioned digital music companies filings in general, and didn't mention Apple anywhere in the article. The author's intrinsic bias against Apple is rampant. The author worded the article to make it sound like Apple was the one PUSHING for the 4% when in fact, it's probably the concensus of the trade lobby that is asking for 4%. I'm appalled that this author is allowed to spin his dislike against Apple using the most uncorrelated information. hey, if u can't afford to buy an iPod and be cool, grow up and get a job. Bashing Apple is not the solution.
This post was on the front page of a torrent site:
The Flashbulb wrote: Hello listener...downloader...pirate...pseudo-criminal... If you can read this, then you've more than likely downloaded this album from a peer to peer network or torrent. You probably expect the rest of this message to tell you that you're hurting musicians and breaking just about every copyright law in the book. Well, it won't tell you that. What I would like to tell you is that my record label understands that a large portion of people pirate music because it is easier than buying it. CDs scratch easily, most pay-per-download sites have poor quality and ****ty DRM protection, and vinyl is near impossible to find or ship without hassle. In many cases I wonder why people buy CDs at all anymore. A few like the tangible artwork, some haven't adapted to MP3s yet, but most do it because they have a profound love for music and want to support the artists making it. Kind of restores your faith in humanity for a moment eh? So, now what? Like the album? About to go "support the artist" on iTunes? Well, don't. Alphabasic is currently in a legal battle against Apple because NONE of our material (Sublight Records included) receives a dime of royalty from the vast amount of sales iTunes has generated using our material. Want to buy a CD just to show your support? If you don't particularly like CDs, don't bother. Retailers like Best Buy and Amazon spike the price so high that their cut is often 8 times higher than the artist's. Besides, most CDs are made out of unrecyclable plastic and leave a nasty footprint in your environment. If you do particularly like CDs, buy them from the label (in our case, alphabasic.com). After manufacturing costs are recuperated, our artists usually receive over 90% of the actual money coming out of your wallet. In addition, all of our physical products are made out of 100% recycled material. Want to show your support? Go here and browse our library of lossless, DRM-free downloads. Already have that? Then feel free to donate whatever you want to your favorite artist. 100% will go directly to them. Hell, you can even donate a penny just to thank the artist. If you really like 'The Flashbulb - Soundtrack To A Vacant Life' and want to show your support without it going to greedy retailers, distributors, and coked-up label reps, then click the button below. http://www.alphabasic.com/index2.htm If you send us your mailing address, Alphabasic may occasionally send you various goodies (overstocks, stickers, even rare CDs) in appreciation and encouragement for your support. Thanks for reading. Who knows if my little business plan here will work to fund new releases, but even failure is better than the crappy label/distributor/retailer system musicians have suffered from for over 50 years. We hope you enjoy the music as much as we do releasing it. Finally, if you plan on sharing this release, please include this file. The only reason it is here is to show the listener where he can support his favorite artists! Benn Jordan CEO - Alphabasic Records
Even more interesting: it was on the site as a "free leech", meaning it did not count toward your download ratio. There were about 2700 seeds. even if 0nly a tiny percentage send a little donation, the artist will be doing better than through the normal distribution channels, with the added bonus of getting it out to more people, which is what I believe true artists are in it for.
I agree with this. I wish someone would make a website or something that would allow you to donate straight to artists or people that's actually creating the content. Something that really stops me from buying things these days is that I know that the people I'm trying to support, aren't getting much of my money. I would pirate a lot less if I knew that the majority of my money will be going to the artists.
If artists made music available on their website for a price, 10% purchased from the artists, and 90% pirated, the artists would be way ahead, compared with being with a RIAA label. People pirate music anyway. If you take a greater cut, you come out way ahead.
Apple isn't explicitly mentioned in the article and isn't even implicitly referred to because Apple/iTunes is not an Internet streaming service. The submitter erroneously mentions Apple's name in order to get our attention. Either FIX IT or RETRACT IT.
Best car analogy to RIAA ever.
No conversation about the RIAA shall leave it uncompared to a car.
As a composer in tv I can tell you that we are getting f*cked. This... is not going to change. Trent Resnor said that music is essentially free now and I tend to agree. These companies are hammering us to pay less and the RIAA is your basic goon squad. The only way to really make a buck these days is music to picture and licensing. One thing you don't often hear about is that the publishing side of the business is basically ok. Yet, if you are an artist and you think you are going to make money selling songs on places like itunes, think again. Doesn't really matter if it's nine percent or four percent. People just don't pay for music anymore.
I'm a musician's son, my dad is a musician and has watched his royalties go to other people, his works sold without his permission and all sorts of bullshit from these people. I'm not surprised in the slightest.
Smokedot.org
The RIAA said that the collected to ensure that future artists would receive their incentive to perform. Now we can see that this is just a Maffia cartel, wanting the right to extort money on behalf of the firm.
Easy answer. Volume.
It's a crap shoot, granted, but a major label has the power to move a lot of units. They can get them in stores and on the internet, sure...that's the easy part. More importantly, however, they have the resources to market that material. They can get it into commercials, episodes of Scrubs, and this summer's big blockbuster movie. They can get posters up in every major downtown, and signage on the bus and on billboards, can set up national and international promotions on radio, television and the internet, can afford to fund music videos, and can tag the band on to a major festival with many of the labels already successful (read: profitable) acts.
It's all about exposure, and exposure means volume. That can translate to a lot of money. 4% of a million units at $.99 a piece is $40,000 (It can be difficult to spread a million units for free, even if they're MP3s on the internet, without good marketing and of course desired material). That doesn't include other means of income, and of course that such a song can continue bringing in the money by supporting future or past songs and albums by the artist.
Of course, like I said, it's a gamble. You could just as soon do all the hard work and artist or writer does, and even get the record made, to have it not get promoted, or maybe not even released; sitting in a vault for the next 30 years, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. The success stories really are the exception when it comes to signing with a major label. That doesn't stop bands and artists from trying, though.
Do You Experiment?
So any representations by any of these companies that they are concerned for the 'creators' of the music must henceforth be taken with a boxcar-load of salt.
A bocar-load indeed, only I was imagining something a wee bit browner... steaming... mayhaps bovine related???
To quote from the brief:
This assumption, made by the RIAA and NMPA, that streaming is the same as selling a music track, is what triggered a whole stream of Slashdot stories about how the RIAA was trying to destroy Internet radio, such as: Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy.
This would have nothing to do with Apple iTunes Music Store sales of music, which are considered the electronic delivery of an album.
As a side note, I'm astonished how quickly so many otherwise intelligent Slashdot readers seem to pile up on one side or another of an issue, such as Internet Radio royalties, depending on how the winds happen to be blowing--because they fail to think for themselves. If supposedly more intelligent than average Slashdot readers are this easily manipulated, then God help us during tomorrow's Super Tuesday elections...
8% out of zero is still zero.
$> cd
$> more beer
I work in indie games, and the royalties there are just a few pennies on the dollar. In ten years I expect that all serious creative work will be sold via the user's own site, or social networking sites.
And take that pony you rode in on, straight to hell and dance on coals you slimey bastards! That's what we think of our customers.
Music labels take the risk in exchange for value. The take the risk of development,distribution,etc, for possible profits. Signed musicians accept this and give up risk for little long term value. And what is wrong with that? Musicians may complain they got a bad deal, but only after they have proven to be successful and wish the took a risk in distributing/marketing their music themselves. Perhaps slashdot readers should more focus on a better business model (if one exists) rather than making the recording industry the boogeyman.
Everyone knows that the RIAA is going after the illegal downloaders because they are stealing from the poor artists. So why would they do this? Why?
Christ on bike! Does no one watch South Park?
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Related to this, I happened to lookup the increases in the mechanical royalty rates (as claimed in the article). According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties), the mechanical royalty rate has increased from 7.1 cents per song in 1998 to 9.1 cents per song in 2007. I'd be curious to find out about the reasons for that 28% increase. Was the RIAA sitting on it's hands when they happened?
At the same time, sales (i.e. combined CD and digital sales) are down. I guess I'm not surprised that the RIAA is trying to get a bigger slice of a shrinking pie, and that they'd want to reverse the increases in mechanical royalty rates over the past 10 years - and put them lower than 1998 rates.
Also, I found the article to be somewhat confusing - the way they switched back and forth between cents per song and percentages. Also, the "songwriter" is not the same thing as the song performer (many of the songs you hear by a musician were written by someone else). It would be nice if someone could clear-up the royalty rates to the different groups.
Two reasons.
1) artists are good at creation not marketing/design/distribution etc.. Ultimately the do need someone to help them in that respect.
2) Because labels offer artists money upfront. i.e. signing the contract earns you maybe 20-100k. Labels take the risk and musicians get a nice chunk of money that they may or may not ever earn.
If you turn out to be an amazing artist this is a bad deal for the artist obviously. But for most artists I suspect this is a much too tempting way to cash in.
The artist(s),engineers and producers had to sit down, write/plagirise the lyrics figure out the chords, make the musical arrangements record the song.
The industry had to take care of the printing of the actual cd's its physical distribution to certain stores etc etc etc..in short it had to do a decent amount of work
After the revolution of digital distribution
The artist(s),engineers and producers had to sit down, write/plagirise the lyrics figure out the chords, make the musical arrangements record the song. Basically do the same amount of work.
The industry has less cd's to distribute and print, and most of the distribution can be done via websites. Which once created and designed, require a relatively simple upload of a certain album/song which can be done by well trained cat and dog tandem.
So the artist does the same amount of work as before, the recording industry less work then before....and the artist gets paaaaid less....hmm makes sense.
It's just that the money they collect on distribution is taken for their pocket and any expenses they deem necessary, and THEN used to offset the loan made.
Any left after that is given to the artist.
But if I'm pirating, they aren't selling me music. When you ask that I pay a fine for lost revenue, you're telling me to pay for me doing all the work getting the copy to the recording industry who didn't do squat.
> Those dastardly songwriters have too long been taking unfair advantage of the RIAA's clients. They take a whopping 8% of royalties just for creating the product!
Considering that a druggie, slut, no-tal, like Britney Spears, makes $750K a month; maybe the recording industry has been too generous. Rap "artists" don't sing, compose, or play instruments yet they can afford these amazing "cribs." Where would these marginally talented hillbillies and gangsta thugs be with the recording industry?
They are brokers for someone else's rights that they don't want to pay for.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
They should instead raise the royalty to something like 50%. That would fix 'em right quick.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Why should the lobbyist organization for the music industry that does absolutely nothing but sue innocent consumers, get money from songwriters? They're robbing these people of money the songwriters deserve. Aren't they getting enough money by suing tens of thousands of innoncent consumers?
I can see the next step: charging royalties for amateurs as well. So the YouTube generation might soon need to pay to make a song?
The RIAA's disgraceful business practices are getting very annoying...
...other peoples' money ;-)
>> Meanwhile, the big digital music companies, such as Apple, want the royalty rate lowered even more, to something like 4% of wholesale.
I must be missing something here - how do artist royalties have anything whatsoever to do with "digital music companies such as Apple"? Apple and others purchase music from the labels to resell, it's up to the labels to distribute whatever royalties to the artist. All Apple knows or cares about is the price they pay the label. Right?
I can't believe this, they already f*ck the little artist guy out of his money buy
.99$ per song and have them get all the money, without having a middle man.
giving him 1$ off every cd sold after 500,000 copies, of the 22$ per cd they get...please.
I have always said I do not care for how they calculate and over inflate their pricing for
copious reasons I would just as likely go to the artist's website directly download the mp3 for
We would have more artists millionaires if they would catch on to this new business model.
t's a crap shoot, granted, but a major label has the power to move a lot of units.
Very true. And, the major label has the sales force that can walk into a radio stations across the country and offer a few incentives to pay a new song. Payola is illegal, for sure, but there's a ton of perks that the radios get for playing particular tunes... even launch parties and stuff. It's a very sleazy business and I would think that a lot of artists would be shocked if they realized just how much fist fighting goes on behind the scenes.
This is my sig.
pirating the music so that the evil RIAA gets nothing whatsoever and the songwriters get a percentage of that. Indeed, pirate the music, push the MPAA and RIAA out of business! ~
BTW, I just learned everything I know about the music industry from wikpedia in less than five minutes! To be fair though, the stupid
Royalties for the dead? I am a song writer and jazz guitarist in the Jazz idiom.(Awesomeargos.com) Having recently produced and recorded my first disk under my own name i can ask honestly why i had to pay D'jango and Goodman money and just how do they receive the funds? I know as a musician that the record company executives are all gODS but how do they compensate a man who has been dead for over 50 years and why do i have to pay him when he has free rent and no taxes where he is now! Now don't get me wrong. I like the notion of helping the loved ones of a newly deceased artist however when the kids hit the age of 40 or so don't you think that they should be ready for their first job?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Meanwhile, the big digital music companies, such as Apple, want the royalty rate lowered even more, to something like 4% of wholesale.
Oh yes, because Apple cares so very much. They want more money in addition to their little ménage-à-trois they've developed with the FairPlay/iTunes/iPod monopoly - apparently being #1 in digital music and PMP/DAP sales isn't quite enough billions annually for Stevie and his buddies.
I had a friend tell me that he'll still buy music because he wants to support the artists. As long as people have that mentality, all they are doing is reconfirming to the RIAA that the way they handle things is ok, acceptable, and successful.
The only way this is going to stop is if artists stop dropping indie labels for the RIAA, and consumers stop buying music produced by the RIAA. Until that happens, all we do is passively approve of this utter bullshit.
I'm a geek girl. Seriously.
Yes, because comparing activities of corporations that bribe politicians, shortchange clients (musicians), ruin people's lives, etc to mobsters is just that terrible. Almost as terrible as those same corporations comparing citzens to bloody ruthless murders, to the extent of redefining the vocabulary around such. Oh, but they would never do that, would they?
Ok, so maybe the ??AA aren't actively stepping out with machine guns and blowing people away, but they are ruining lives, tying up the court system, and in many cases even using our own police force to stage raids that are to nobody's benefit but their own. For that matter, I'm sure that the media companies aren't at all involved with illegal substances or other such things either? Additionally, I didn't personally see any refernces to violence, maiming or torturing, just to racketeering.
So yeah, you could call me a geeky kid (though I'm quite far away from being a kid) who whines about paying for mp3's (even though I actually pay for all my music). Or perhaps you might call me a concerned citizen who has some serious questions about the continually descending ethics of megacorps which wield bribes as opposed to tommyguns, but are having an increasingly destructive influence on the lives and liberties of citizens worldwide.
48% to the artist
4% to the studio that 'promotes' them
And a boot to the head to the RIAA. More reasonably, let the studio pay for RIAA out of their grossly inflated 4% since they're the ones to benefit from whatever the RIAA actually does these days.
If $0.09 cents is 13%, then the wholesale price of a song is around $0.69. So Apple gets $0.30 off the top of a $0.99 download. That sounds about right, they do develop the software, have to maintain a data center with support staff, and pay for the bandwidth. The "Songwriters" supposedly get $0.09, but the article says that is split with the "publishers". What does that mean? The RIAA are the record labels that want it cut to 8% or $0.055 per song, the Digital Music Association (DiMA) wants it cut to 1/2 of that, or $0.0275. Remember, the actual songwriter gets just 1/2 of that since it's split with the "publisher", so they would get only $0.01375, or about 1.4 cents per song download. And here is what DiMA says:
I would hardly call 1.4 cents out of a 99 cent download a 'Golden Egg' or attempt to say that the tiny amount of money that actually goes to people that create (what the U.S. constitution says copyright is intended to encourage) is what will cause the digital download marketplace to collapse. Where does the other $0.60 go from above? We have Apple getting $0.30 and the Songwriters sharing $0.09 with the "Publishers". Who are these entities and where is the other $0.60?
I fail to see how the RIAA can call $0.09 excessive when they are making $0.60 themselves. What are they even doing? There are no production costs. Is it marketing? Maybe we just need less marketing... If they're using digital download profits to fund their lawsuits then they should just stop suing people. Lay off the lawyers getting $500 an hour man...
How can the RIAA truly say they're protecting the interests of the musicians when they actually want to lower their profits without even raising the price of the music. If anything they should be raising the royalty so that people truly thought their artists were getting the money and not these grimy money grubbing corporations. I guess that's part of the "packaged deal" you get when these artists sell themselves to these corporations who hook them up with a big contract.
Wow what a surprise that the recording industry is looking after its own interests rather than the clients it sells.
/. rise above printing crap designed to elicit a waaa response?
And where is the source for Apple wanting songwriter royalties to be lower? Why would a retailer like Apple care how the RIAA divides up its royalty payments? Apple pays a set wholesale fee, and doesn't negotiate the RIAA labels' business.
This sounds like an inflammatory Digg posting and the majority of the replies sound like knee jerk diggtards. Please, there's already a site for morons. Can't
Why does Microsoft really want Yahoo?