Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA and Net Radio Broadcasters Reach Agreement

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-up dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The RIAA and internet web broadcasters have reached a royalty agreement. Instead of facing massive increases per song played, they will be generally charged 10.5% of their yearly revenue."

43 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. This is unheard of, but... by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it's also a sign that the RIAA knows it is outdated and is only grasping at the few straws remaining.

    If you're thinking of starting a business venture, there are two words for you: supply and demand.

    No amount of laws or regulations can overcome supply and demand in the long run. The RIAA relied on preferential laws and regulations to maintain their control over distribution. Recorded music has a near-infinite supply in terms of distribution online. Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero (yes, some people who see value in compensating the artist will never believe the price should be zero).

    The RIAA is screwed, no matter how you look at it. Most monopolistic corporation unions who rely on legislation and not on supply and demand are just as screwed.

    1. Re:This is unheard of, but... by WTF+Chuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      100% of nothing is nothing. If you are going to charge your distributors more for your "product" than your they will make selling that "product", then you get the full 100% of nothing. On the other hand, if you see that they will walk away and find some other line of work if you insist on the full 100%, then you know it's time to come to somewhat more reasonable prices.

      --
      Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
    2. Re:This is unheard of, but... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very true.

      The future will be "Songs are our promotion, and concerts are where the real money's at."

      For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments. If you want to do it on the cheap, well... that's why recording studios exist. How often do you hear about recording studios going bankrupt and having an unsuccessful business model? They don't.

      The RIAA is the middleman that can be cut out far too easily. All they have going for them is their marketing power, and as they lose money that will be waning as well. Artists will form coalitions, collaborations, etc. and pool their resources to get the word out - like a record label, but less concerned with selling plastic discs and more concerned about advertising.

      Either the RIAA is going to reinvent itself into a successful business or it's going to collapse under its own weight. Either way, it will be interesting and the artists will survive.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    3. Re:This is unheard of, but... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The RIAA is screwed, no matter how you look at it.

      As long as they can buy laws, copyright regulations, and even international treaties, they're doing just fine. Sooner or later, their influence will probably wane, but don't hold your breath waiting. They've got a lot of life left in them, sad to say.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:This is unheard of, but... by akirapill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments. If you want to do it on the cheap, well... that's why recording studios exist. How often do you hear about recording studios going bankrupt and having an unsuccessful business model? They don't.

      While you are correct in saying that the huge drop in price and increase in quality of recording equipment has made it easier for artists to publish their music independently, the same fact is actually driving professional recording studios out of business. Engineers are making a fraction of the money they made 15 years ago now that every middle schooler knows how to use Garage Band, and small studios are increasingly losing out from competition at home if they're not backed by a label. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable because on the one hand it removes obstacles from musicians and further minimizes the impact of the recording industry on music, but it hurts the art of recording when its harder for professionals to make a living.

    5. Re:This is unheard of, but... by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but most studios include engineering as part of the recording (or don't charge much extra). An experienced professional can make your music sound better than some Garage Band newbie.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    6. Re:This is unheard of, but... by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The future will be "Songs are our promotion, and concerts are where the real money's at."
      .

      That's fine if you are Gordon Lightfoot and still have the stamina and the talent to fill the 3000+ seat Shea's Buffalo at age 69.

      Maybe not so fine if your burn out from the rigors of a full concert tour at a much younger age.

      --- or you know that you are never in your professional career going to see a booking at a first, second or even third tier concert venue.

    7. Re:This is unheard of, but... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And experienced professionals can make it sound like raging crap as well. Listen to most of the stuff out there now. They compress it hard so most of the dynamic range is not there, plus they EQ it for some pimply faced 16 year olds cheap car stereo and speakers propped in the back window.

      It's very hard to find a RIAA disc that was mastered by a pro that did it right instead of their cookie cutter nastyness they have been creating lately.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:This is unheard of, but... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's fine if you are Gordon Lightfoot and still have the stamina and the talent to fill the 3000+ seat Shea's Buffalo at age 69.

      A tile setter won't have the stamina at age 69 either. That trade is deservedly considered to be 'back breaking'. Do the users of bathrooms he tiled in his prime pay him a royalty?

      Maybe not so fine if your burn out from the rigors of a full concert tour at a much younger age.

      Maybe they'll need to find new jobs when they age? Its how the rest of society copes with the fact that they can't do the jobs they did when they were younger.

      --- or you know that you are never in your professional career going to see a booking at a first, second or even third tier concert venue.

      And?

      Most models passing through expensive modelling schools never even earn enough at modelling jobs to pay back what it cost to go through 'school' and keep their portfolio maintained. The VAST majority never do better than a department store catalog job. And as they age and become less marketable... long before that, in most cases, they find another job.

      So most musicians won't be successful enough to live off concert revenue, so what? They can get jobs like everyone else, and can join the ranks of: most poets, most authors, most fencers, most basketball players, most playwrights, most actors, most open source contributors...

    9. Re:This is unheard of, but... by JWW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but 0.1% of something really large is still a significant number. I agree that the price can't go to zero for buying a song online, but I fail to see how it couldn't go down to say $0.10 per song.

    10. Re:This is unheard of, but... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many Slashdotters believe that production costs are next to nothing, and that record companies don't have significant costs for marketing, salaries or overhead. This helps foster the notion that each download is cost-free to the record label.

      No, what fosters the notion that each download is cost-free to the record label is the simple fact that each download is cost-free to the record label.

      Do not confuse up-front costs with per-item costs. Just because a track cost an enormous amount of money up-front to produce doesn't mean that any of that cost applies per download.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    11. Re:This is unheard of, but... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may amplify your overall point but the fact remains that the per-download costs of a track are essentially zero. Basically all of the costs are up-front. Obviously that up-front cost gets amortized into whatever price they charge for the product, but that doesn't make it suddenly magically transform into a per-download cost.

      Your example at the end about piracy and shooting mice into orbit perfectly illustrates this. If it were truly a per-unit cost then that cost would be borne over every unit produced, even the ones pirated, stolen, or launched into the Sun. But it's actually an up-front cost which gets factored into the end price of the goods, so it only applies to the ones that they charge for.

      Case in point: I once donated some software I wrote to schools. As I'm sure you know, you can deduct the cost of such donations from your taxes when the recipient is properly qualified. In the case of my software, which was done all electronically, the amount I was able to deduct was a big fat zero. Seems the tax men only care about the actual per-unit costs, even though the stuff sells for a distinctly non-zero amount, and a lot of that amount is to take care of the up-front costs of development.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    12. Re:This is unheard of, but... by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More granularity is required here. In accounting terms, a paid download has no cost of goods (COGS) costs, but it does have cost of sale (COS) costs.

      You're correct that a download performed, say, via BitTorrent or from one random person to another has no costs which are charged back to the software company or record label (although these companies would love to convert piracy statistics to losses on their balance sheets!). Costs of sale, on the other hand, are very real.

      I wasn't aware that you're liable to not get a tax credit for donating software you've developed -- that's an interesting fact. I wasn't aware of this because I'm not a independent/hobbyist software developer so I wouldn't pretend to understand the intricacies of how it works. I do, however, have an intimate understanding of cost analysis for retail goods.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    13. Re:This is unheard of, but... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume that "cost of sale" would refer to things like paying the credit card companies, bandwidth, and so forth? If so, that is easy to overlook, but it's also quite a small cost. For example, from what I've read about Apple's iTunes store, a $1 track puts something like 10 cents into the transaction costs and the rest goes to either the record companies or to paying off Apple's fixed costs. And this could be made a lot smaller with a better payment processing system, although I will freely admit that such a thing is essentially pie-in-the-sky right now.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    14. Re:This is unheard of, but... by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you say is true, but there are further issues involved.

      For example, imagine the situation where Acme allows you to make an exact copy of their mouse using your own plastic and assembly line, but they charge you slightly MORE than if you let them make it for you and ship it to you.

      Yes, there are fixed up-front production costs involved that must be amortized over sales. There are also promotion expenses on-going that must be covered. However, there are per-unit manufacturing and shipping costs that one might expect to be subtracted from the price when you're downloading.

      The other issue for recording is that they spend astronomical sums making a high quality, then ruin it by mixing too hot, then it's trashed by lossy compression and/or cheesy headphones. Most of the consumers can't hear the difference anyway.

      They should consider cutting some of their production costs unless the album is likely to be a hit with discerning listeners.

  2. Supply and demand, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Supply and demand [...] Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero (yes, some people who see value in compensating the artist will never believe the price should be zero)

    There will always be a segment of the population who wants to produce music simply for the fun of it. But they still need to eat.

    If there's no income in music, it'll end up strictly a hobby-level endeavor. While a lot of decent stuff can come out of that, wouldn't it be better if the highly-talented musicians could focus more on their art by not having to also have a day job? (Yes I know about the current injustices in the system, but swinging it 100% the other way isn't the answer either.)

    Without money in general music, the best musicians will end up producing work for advertisers since that'll be the only source of regular paying employment that uses their talents. Are you sure that's where you want the music industry to be going?

    1. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by mcwidget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There will always be a segment of the population who wants to produce music simply for the fun of it. But they still need to eat.

      More than this; the potential to earn enough cash quickly (and easily?) enough to allow you and your family to live comfortably for the rest of your life is a major driving factor for many of the people in the business today. The less reward there is available, the less motivation. Rightly or wrongly, with less reward you have less talent - or at least, less depth of talent.

    2. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The world could do with vastly less musicians who are in it for the money.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything you say is true. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the RIAA contributes anything toward the ability of musicians to make a living off their music. Given the numerous horror stories about just how much industry parasites suck out of the music buyer's dollar on its journey from the buyer's wallet to the musician's bank account, it's quite reasonable to believe that it is more difficult to make a living as a professional musician with the RIAA around than it would be in the absence of such an organization.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by akirapill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's an expensive habit, most of us are just trying to break even.

    5. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's an expensive habit,...

      Yeah, I think that statement should be in the running for some sort of award for "Most massive understatement in a /. post".

      most of us are just trying to break even.

      Anything that's music-related...instruments, amps, etc...is extremely pricey. A decent brand-name USA-made professional-quality electric guitar will set you back $2,000-$3,000, and the same with an amp (thinking of an example of a new Gibson Les Paul and a 50 watt Marshall half-stack). That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players' personal rig in an average good-quality bar/club cover band!!

      That's not counting effects pedals and/or rackmount effects/processors, cabling, strings, picks, stands, microphones ($100-$150 each), PA gear, and the maintenance costs of keeping all the equipment (which can be quirky) and the instruments in shape. Heck, just a new set of tubes for a guitar amp can easily run $200-$300! That's just for starters. Then there's transportation and storage costs for all the equipment, and personal transportation and lodging plus food costs, and even laundry for those on the road, on top of that for all the band members.

      Most average bar/club bands don't come anywhere near to paying even ongoing expenses, never mind also recovering their investment in the equipment and instruments when you factor in all the costs. Most bars only pay a band $350-$500, many even less. Many times a band will get stiffed altogether by shady bar owners. These guys do what they do because they love playing and entertaining. Please keep this in mind the next time you go to a bar or club and see a tip jar at the edge of the stage.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by fprintf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is, hobbies are expensive. The fact that you have an opportunity to make some money on it is just an extra bonus. Think the guy who is into sailing moans about the $10-$200K he has in gear, and how "the man" (e.g. the Coast Guard) makes all these laws conspiring against him earning some income off his investment? Or how about the airplane pilot, with $200,000 sunk into his private plane that cannot take private passengers for hire?

      What makes musicians so special and whiney? It is a hobby, albeit an expensive one, that if you are really really good at, you can get paid to do. Same with pilots. Same with boat captains. No one owes anyone an income from their hobby.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    7. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most bars only pay a band $350-$500, many even less.

      here in Springfield it's usually less, but then again there's supply and demand. There are a lot of musicians here, many of then tending bar in the same joints they perform in.

      Some make a lot of money, though. My friend and former neighbor, Ed McCann, gave up his job as a union carpenter because he was making more money singing (yeah, the guy's REAL good. I haven't seen Ed in quite some time).

      Many times a band will get stiffed altogether by shady bar owners.

      I haven't heard of that a lot around here; word would get out pretty quickly and the bar would have a hard time hiring. Plus, that's fraud. Nobody wants to lose their liquor license.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    8. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not talking about the few dedicated dyed in the wool musicians who love their craft and would do it even if they couldn't make a living off of it but they are, in fact, the minority.

      I'd have to disagree that they are the minority. In my 30-plus years experience as a musician having met and played with more musicians than I could possibly count, almost all do it because they love music and playing for people. Do many have hopes they might get lucky? Sure, but they realize they're more likely to be struck by a meteor than become rich and/or famous from music. Most who enter "the biz" for fame and fortune are quickly disillusioned.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by Digital+End · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could earn $500 a week working clubs (if you're very lucky). Of that money, you pay the whole band, eat, fix equipment, and so on.

      The RIAA shows up, and offers to show your material to everyone in the country with their advertising, which means instead of a bar's worth of people, you have a country full... but they get 1/2 your money and get to decide what you write music about (prepare for angsty teen drama).

      Still a net gain financially... even if it means your giving up creativity and freedom for it. Just depends if the artist finds writing and preferming their own music more important then money.

      Possible fixes to the system? Independant website that works kind of like Pandora... mods mark a song with certain genres, people listen, vote for songs with a simple 'thumbs up or down' option, pay the artist based on how often his song is listened to (obviously more $$ if the song is good), people who don't suck get paid, people who do suck don't.

      And yes, exploitable... bugs would need ironed out... but it's 9am, lucky I can type this early...

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    10. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by Undead+NDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're conveniently forgetting Alanis Morrissette, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Spin Doctors, Green Day, Beck, and a host of other artists who - unlike the current generation - really had something to say musically. Who is the new [insert one of the heavyweights I just named here] today?

    11. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the guy had a bias? Here's another bias for you.

      I'm 30 years old. Most of the music I like is from the 70s and 80s (the former is before I was really cognizant of music, and the for the latter, I didn't listen to music much as my family tended not to listen to music.) I tend to think that these are the best years for processed music. Having heard some raw recordings of old greats, I think that the 50s and 60s were the best years for raw vocal talent.

      So here's the bias: no one plays crappy oldies anymore or crappy "classic rock" anymore. The wheat was separated from the chaff over time, and now all that's played on the radio from that era are the really standout stuff. Compare that to today's music, where the good stuff is still hidden amongst all of the crap--it's all played because the time, the consumer, and the producers haven't figured out which ones are really hits. I don't think that even 15 years is enough to really distill a time period's music into the good stuff.

    12. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Artists get ripped off majorly. somewhere around 95% of the revenue artists create is sucked up by the RIAA. The money isn't tied up in costs to produce the media, marketing, distribution or anything like that - it wanders into the pockets of the fat cats."

      It's been amply covered elsewhere that the record labels are hemmoraging money. One reason is because they're just not yet prepared for the move to digital downloading. Warner Records, for instance, is losing money because people are choosing (surprise!) to download only one or two tracks from each new CD, rather than buy the entire thing. Additionally, I believe Warner has set up their internal accounting so that physical CDs are the money makers; with CD sales falling faster than they anticipated, they're losing money on unsold inventory and not making enough of it on the downloads.

      Anyway, downloading a track or downloading a CD or buying software or a gallon of milk or a pair of jeans are all very similar from the supply chain perspective. The retailer often grosses the most; ie. Best Buy might have a 40% markup. The iTunes store pays around $0.65 for each track it sells for a buck; Amazon makes about 15% margin if their model for downloads is the same as it is for other products. This is all money that the manufacturer doesn't see.

      Of the money that the manufacturer does collect, most of it goes to employees, suppliers, and contractors -- not the fat cats. Again, this is the same whether it's that track you've downloaded or the shirt you've bought. It's here where the record labels see the artist as just a contractor or supplier -- so they're liable to get a meager percentage.

      The "wanders into the pockets of fat cats" assertion can be tested with some math. Going back to Warner Music -- they made $3.5B (yes, BILLION) last year; their profit margin was negative 1.5% and their operating margin was 6%. If Warner's CEO made $10 million last year, that's about a third of a percent of the company's revenue.

      This would mean that for each $0.99 track Warner sold last year, that $10MM per year CEO made a whopping a third of a cent. Doesn't sound like much, but if he makes a third of percent of all revenue, there's his massive $10 million payday.

      But compare that third of a cent to what Warner paid out for each track downloaded: Apple (the good guys!) got $0.35. Amazon got $0.15. Any composers or lyricists who didn't perform the songs they wrote got about $0.08. Even MasterCard and VISA got more from the transaction than Warner's fat cat CEO.

      Do musicians make too little money when they sign to the big labels? Absolutely. Are record executives overpaid? Unless Warner's CEO took more than $1 last year, then definitely -- negative one percent margin is deplorable. But it's also essential to understand that when we buy music, that pie is sliced into hundreds of pieces, and the little guys get away with a lot more pie than the fat cats.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    13. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by wronskyMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because in America, we had a principle at some point in time that the govt should by default not regulate your actions unless it had a legitimate need to. Boat and airplane accidents can kill passengers, that is why the FAA and USCG regulate commercial use. While I have heard some pretty horrible amateur music, I doubt many people have been killed by a crappy track. Also, music is a form of speech which falls under the first amendment, flying and sailing don't (unless you're skywriting maybe).

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
    14. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is there an automatic assumption that when someone is "in it for the money", there is suddenly no longer any potential for them to be talented artists? Money and art are not mutually exclusive; and I am unsure why whenever an artist wants to get paid for commensurate to his talent, it's suddenly some kind of sin.

    15. Re:Supply and demand, indeed by jeremiahstanley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your figures are inflated. I played bass for over 10 years and here is what I remember paying:

      Bass: about $1000
      Amp: about $1500
      PA: we did a used one, for $1500 (it came with two mics)
      Strings, picks, beer, etc: $60 every other month or so.

      $10k is too much, we split the PA 3 ways and my grandparents of all people bought my amp for me. The most expensive part of the ordeal was probably the music training. Public school is subsidized to you by the gov't so taking music there is near free. But then I had 10 years of music lessons at $20/wk. Factor in the time spent practicing, buying books, etc and you have a bigger number than gear.

      Hell, for $10k these days you could home record a pretty awesome record including all the gear to do so.

      The key here is that you don't need the "ZOMG BESTEST!!!one" stuff to be a good musician. I'm not advocating being cheap, quality is what counts. And if you are going into bars and playing gigs with a tube amp, well, you deserve to shell out big bucks as you are an elitist twerp. They do sound better, but slamming them off of a truck every night is a good way to spend money on breaking something that can be replaced by a nigh indestructible IC.

      Furthermore, if you are still working bars and getting ~$400 for your gigs then you aren't making enough to tour on w/o outside jobs and therefore are still not professional. Perhaps it's better on the coasts but here in the mid-west it's tough to get paying gigs that aren't weddings. People just don't go out to hear music as they all want to hear the same schlock that is bleating off of corporate radio.

      This however doesn't cover streaming internet radio pricing into how bands/artists get paid for their art. Somebody needs to put a nail in the coffin of corporate radio and the FCC needs to ensure fair access to the airwaves. It used to be that if you could tolerate outlandish opinions and dead air you could find some of the best music on college radio. Now most of the stations are run by corporate interests and farm interns from schools. Pirate radio is some of the best programming you can find, however it is rabidly illegal. This leaves streaming, and RIAA is killing it. Therefore, radio shows need to go to the "podcast" broadcast method and deliver "value added" content. Essentially bring back the educated music loving DJ and some critical theory. He wraps it up into a show, and generates sponsors to pay for his time (and cd habit). Streaming is dead as a delivery method.

      --
      Hire me...
  3. Re:Yay Pandora! by pacificleo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and open it for streaming to countries out side of US

    --
    somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
  4. Only for on-demand services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry for posting as AC but I just would like to point out that this agreement is only for On-Demand services and not pre-programmed web radio services (which most web radio stations are).

    So for most stations this does not change anything and the insane royalty rates that threatens the whole web radio industry is still very much in place.

  5. Re:10.5% of the yearly revenue? by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had to do a double take when I read 10.5% of yearly revenue. 10.5% of profits sounds excessive, but 10.5% off the top is outrageous.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  6. Non-profit != no profit by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Non-profit organisation" does not mean the organisation makes no profit. It means the organisation puts the money back into itself rather than paying out dividends etc. It doesn't mean they operate at a loss and require constant donations to remain functional.

    Some "non-profits" have even been run with the purpose of making its directors etc richer (eg they just jack up their salaries).

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  7. As a musician, I'm not a fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TFA is vague but it sounds like there's no meaningful way for an artist to have these fees waived and, to top it off, those non-member artists aren't going to get any money from it anyway. Sounds like a great way to prop up the 'ole cartel.

  8. RIAA or MAFIA? by TheCybernator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. RIAA is acting like a mafia. Asking for a flat cut as protection money. Civilized extortion.

    --
    Eclipse PDE and Me
  9. Amateur by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To lazy to google it, but there have been several breakdowns of the costs a label charges to the artist to account for the difference between the price of a CD and the amount the artist gets paid.

    Basically 10.5% of the sale price is just penauts. I am willing to bet quite a few RIAA execs choked on that before they could finally sign the agreement.

    In other industries, it would be a lot. In music, it is childsplay.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  10. Negative comments on the RIAA don't work by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really if you want to stop the RIAA you need to start posting hate on the companies that support it. Once you start to hurt their brands and people stop buying their products because of the negative press, and the RIAA will cease to exist. Everyone hates the RIAA, but no one hates those who fund it yet. So hate on these companies.

    SONY
    WARNER
    EMI
    UNIVERSAL ...

  11. it's still blackmail: pay us to market our songs by jsepeta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    radio, internet or old-school, should be free to play whatever it wants whenever. we the consumers have the ability to switch the station or turn it off. music providers (musicians, composers, and labels) make money off the successful marketing of their works. so why should they be paid by radio stations to market their work? where the hell would the labels be if radio only played the works of Indie artist who said to Hell with the old way of running radio (kickbacks, pay for play, etc)

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  12. 10.5% sounds like a protection racket to me by DragonTHC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much of that will go to artists? apparently none since no one is keeping track of the artists whose music is played.

    Nope, this is more payola. Fat Tony wants 10.5% of the take for your continued ability to play music without issue.

    Notice, it says 10.5% of the yearly revenue. Not yearly profit.

    Yep, this is bad for artists and bad for consumers and bad for everyone except the RIAAfia

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  13. Re:10.5% of the yearly revenue? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In your fluffy, shiny little world how does Pandora pay for its bandwidth?

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  14. Re:funny in a sick sort of way by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nope. You see, the artist is like the ditch digger, the brick layer, the janitor kinda guy. He does all the work, but always ends up with nothing.
    Its always the suits who get to earn it.
    10.5% of total revenue? Not profit... but revenue, wow! The RIAA is brilliant.
    I dearly hope artists sue the RIAA for 10.5% of its revenue per year.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer