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...
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
'"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...
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."
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
they are paranoid about losing money.
-Karthik
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.
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.
It's not like a lot of "TV shows" and "movies" being "performed" by "actors" are that great, and yet their writers are all on strike over how they're getting screwed out of royalty money. And yet I'm sure it'll work for them, so why not for songwriters?
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.
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
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.
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?
their profits are a lie...
The only problem is, songwriters don't have a full control over their creative work. The mechanics of the system goes under various names, such as "compulsory license", "statutory license", or in TFA, "mechanical license". Lessig's Free Culture gives a better account than I can, but the most songwriters can do is refuse to write more songs, not refuse to license their already-published work.
Given the usual release cycles of albums (probably the real difference between the music industry and TV shows), they will need to do be able to sustain their strike for one year or longer—how many strikes have you seen that lasted one whole year?
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?
No worries, David... I wasn't meaning to include you in the pro-piracy crowd (in fact, we haven't met until now). Thanks for speaking up for the anti-anti-piracy crowd. Does anybody want to chime in to represent the anti-anti-anti-piracy crowd?
No matter what crowd you're in: the mods, the rockers, the mockers, the greasers, the bloods, the crips, the AARP, the "time cube" guy, people who are still coding in Simula 67, the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads -- you're probably against DRM, too, and you probably agree that Ferris Bueller is a righteous dude. But my point remains that the pro-piracy crowd is one of its biggest opponents.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Bandwidth is cheap. Sell your own music, and keep 100%.
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?
"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?"
The composer, lyricist and performer each get royalties. The royalties for composers and lyricists are set by law (hence the news whenever the record labels want to change it), while the performer's royalties are contractual. I believe the law allows for lowering royalties for the composer/lyricist if they're also the performer. The royalties for the composer and lyricist typically don't go directly to the composer and lyricist, but to a publishing company, which keeps a cut in exchange for tracking payments. Often the publishing company is a one-person company set up by the composer or lyricist. In a few cases, the publishing company is actually owned by a record company.
This page is a bit out-dated, but it covers the basics of how royalties are paid for CD sales. Downloads, as we've seen, are a bit different.
What it boils down to is that the royalties are often the biggest slice of the pie. The rest of the money goes toward paying the salaries of various other people at the record company. The popular perception that the record company gets the rest (in the sense of hoarding it some Gringotts-style bank) isn't true too much nowadays with the prevailing health of the industry -- Warner Brothers lost money last year, so they're spending money faster than they're making it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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
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.
much of that paper loss is to small companies hired at exorbinant rates that are owned by execs in the larger companies.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
"much of that paper loss is to small companies hired at exorbinant rates that are owned by execs in the larger companies."
Can you give an example?
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
...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
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.
re: how many strikes have you seen that lasted one whole year?
One for more than ten - on paper, anyhow:
http://www.rihs.org/mssinv/Mss1042.htm
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Best car analogy to RIAA ever.
No conversation about the RIAA shall leave it uncompared to a car.
Except (at least in the U.S.) songwriters aren't organized. They don't really have any collective bargaining power.
Consequently, there's a whole slew of non-professional writers who could be drafted up to write. This is complicated by the fact that, outside of country, pop and R&B, so many bands write their own material. Would they also strike? If not, then the RIAA has something even better than reality television. They've still got the real deal.
As a songwriter, I really do wish there were a union, but much as club owners can just decline to pay you (because there are so many bands and artists have so little bargaining power), so can record companies just move on to the next desperate writer or publisher.
Do You Experiment?
Look at the Board of Directors for the Digital Media Association (DiMA) and tell me that Apple isn't involved.
iTunes is by far the biggest internet-based music vendor, and the number-two (eMusic) isn't part of DiMA.
As an addendum, I am a member of the SGA (Songwriters Guild of America), and I can most certainly state they are not a union in any traditional sense of the word. An organization that is thrilled to help and tout it's most successful artists, yes, but not a union.
Do You Experiment?
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
I think the poster was referring to the endless buying up of subsidiary labels and subsidiaries to the subsidiaries. Great way to accumulate catalog and a talent pool, but in the end the pond just gets bigger and the fish just get smaller.
Do You Experiment?
/me checks his bank account for the millions of dollars that he purportedly has earned from the high cost of music.
Nope. No overpayment here. They must be talking about Metallica.
Do You Experiment?
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
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.
I wanted to contact the pirate bay guys and see if they'd be interested to setup paypal (or similar) accounts for artists which we could contribute to. Ofcourse we need to trust this money is indeed making its way directly to the artists, but thats not hard to do.. Perhaps it could become the default distribution channel for artists wanting to get their music out (instead of custom sites like Radiohead and Saul Williams used)
> 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 $750K a month; maybe the recording industry has been too generous. Rap "artists" don't sing, compose, or play instruments yet they can afford these amazing "cribs." Where would these marginally talented hillbillies and gangsta thugs be with the recording industry?
They are brokers for someone else's rights that they don't want to pay for.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
They should instead raise the royalty to something like 50%. That would fix 'em right quick.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Why should the lobbyist organization for the music industry that does absolutely nothing but sue innocent consumers, get money from songwriters? They're robbing these people of money the songwriters deserve. Aren't they getting enough money by suing tens of thousands of innoncent consumers?
I can see the next step: charging royalties for amateurs as well. So the YouTube generation might soon need to pay to make a song?
The RIAA's disgraceful business practices are getting very annoying...
...other peoples' money ;-)
>> Meanwhile, the big digital music companies, such as Apple, want the royalty rate lowered even more, to something like 4% of wholesale.
I must be missing something here - how do artist royalties have anything whatsoever to do with "digital music companies such as Apple"? Apple and others purchase music from the labels to resell, it's up to the labels to distribute whatever royalties to the artist. All Apple knows or cares about is the price they pay the label. Right?
you did ALL the work?
and here was I thinking the musicians, songwriter and recording engineer may have been SLIGHTLY involved in that...
But hey, fuck them right?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I can't believe this, they already f*ck the little artist guy out of his money buy
.99$ 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.
Remember, REAL artists don't want money, and would happily live penniless if they could give away their lifes work for free.
And they would be ESPECIALLY happy if someone else were making a shitload of money off of their work, while they themselves were STILL broke!
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?
Shoot. REAL artists pay YOU to listen to their music.
(In Soviet Russia?)