Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Accounting — How Labels Avoid Paying Musicians
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, we discussed Techdirt's tale of 'Hollywood Accounting,' which showed how movies like Harry Potter still officially 'lose' money with some simple accounting tricks. This week Techdirt is taking on RIAA accounting and demonstrating why most musicians — even multi-platinum recording stars — may never see a dime from their album sales. 'They make you a "loan" and then take the first 63% of any dollar you make, get to automatically increase the size of the "loan" by simply adding in all sorts of crazy expenses (did the exec bring in pizza at the recording session? that gets added on), and then tries to get the loan repaid out of what meager pittance they've left for you. Oh, and after all of that, the record label still owns the copyrights.' The average musician on a major record deal 'gets' about $23 per $1,000 made... and that $23 still never gets paid because it has to go to 'recouping' the loan... even though the label is taking $630 out of that $1,000, and not counting it towards the advance. Remember all this the next time a record label says they're trying to protect musicians' revenue."
someone has got to play devils advocate. the latest round of carefully cultivated pop stars and rock bands could very well be designed from their inception to be too outright stupid to determine how this scheme works. Rap stars are groomed and trained to pay attention only to the lambos, the parties, and the mansions. the quick-change mainstream music is where the RIAA is getting the most bang for their buck, and despite some artists attempts to buck the trend by creating their own labels their efforts are sadly misplaced. anything in the industry that so much as glances at a musical instrument is shackled to the wagon of the RIAA and regardless of whether artists select an independent distribution channel or the more commonly recognized channels its extremely difficuly to avoid paying at least some funding to the RIAA.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That is easy said. But I happen to make one part of my income with music... Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers? Can you distribute? Can you promote them? Those guys can... it is easy to fall for it. And Itunes? Well that is a product that attracts a certain kind of public. Not necessary a public that can see the difference between good music and a fucking promotion stunt... Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place....... not that I am that big of a fan, but would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory? It's easy said mate, but in the real world, those guys have all the things you need. And they are willing to sell it. They just don't tell you the real price. Don't get me wrong though, we agree, but this is not the musicians fault. Not at all.
"Remember all this the next time a record label says they're trying to protect musicians' revenue."
I haven't thought that labels were trying to protect musicians' ANYTHING since 1972. And it wasn't true before that.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think everything on that TV show is rented. I cannot believe that skateboarding hot-kid-of-the-month can afford a McMansion, 18 Escalades, a room full of arcade machines, yadda-yadda, from 2 or 3 endoresement deals when he will be old and stale before the year is out.
Either that, or the repo men have a heck of a time 6 months down the road.
That TV show, just like *everything* on TV is totally fake.
It's just not possible given the realities of these situations.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers?
No, but you sure don't need the RIAA for that.
Can you distribute?
That's the real trick, getting your music distributed in stores.
Can you promote them?
Yes, and even if I can't a publicity firm is a lot cheaper than the RIAA.
And Itunes? Well that is a product that attracts a certain kind of public. Not necessary a public that can see the difference between good music and a fucking promotion stunt... Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place.......
That's just an inane comment. iTunes is a store. If some company decides for whatever reason they don't want to sell in that store, fine, but that doesn't mean "it has no place". You might as well argue "The Electric Fetus" record store is a store where Jaime Thietten has no place since she won't let a store with "fetus" in the name sell her music.
...would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
Yes. Like 99.9% of people, while I can't buy the Beatles albums there, I'm not going to let a boycott by one copyright holder over a trademark issue prevent me from doing business with them. That's just dumb.
It's easy said mate, but in the real world, those guys have all the things you need. And they are willing to sell it.
Wait, that's your argument. Well, the iTunes store is out because the Beetles catalog isn't there so I guess people have to be ripped off by the RIAA? Times are changing. There are numerous indie labels that will share the profits, print the music, and put your music in the iTunes store along with other places. The RIAA's strength has been in locking down the distribution channels and promotional channels (radio) but with the internet here, those methods are starting to fail. There are a lot of better ways for real musicians to make money than try to get a deal with an RIAA label.
Pot meet kettle.
Boredom is bliss.
radio is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to clearchannel...
Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place....... not that I am that big of a fan, but would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
So you're saying that just because the iTunes store doesn't have The Beatles, that people shouldn't buy from there, or if they do, they aren't real music lovers? I guess if you had to get all of your music from a single source, and you needed to have The Beatles, then iTunes wouldn't be for you, but iTunes has tons of stuff that you can't find in any brick and mortar store, and even a lot that Amazon doesn't have. Any real music lover wouldn't limit themselves by not shopping at a store simply because they didn't have one artist. If they did that, they wouldn't shop anywhere, as no store has every artist.
well excuse me, but what good is a nice looking album distributed, promoted in good numbers going to do to you, if you do not even get $23 out of $1000, as per in the related article ?
Read radical news here
Yeah, just like anyone who doesn't take the time to learn self-defense courses deserves to get beat up!
Listen, some of us may know what kind of deceitful manipulative wankers these guys are, but the general public is woefully unaware at just how underhanded the entertainment industries can be. We're talking about industries that know how to manipulate audiences and manufacture appeal among the masses... They know a thing or two about promoting images, including their own.
While I do wish more artists were better informed about what type of deal with the Devil they were making, but it's no excuse for how they get screwed over.
This whole scene is a mess. Big Labels have way too much control of what music people actually get exposed to, and the chances of making it anywhere without them are pretty slim. Even with the knowledge of how badly they treat the artists, some will still succumb because they feel it's their only real choice.
It's easy to say "just start an indie band", but what matters is not how many indie bands there are out there, but how many indie music customers there are out there. It's the buyers that make the difference, not the artists, and unfortunately I have little faith in the mass of sheep.
The article (and most of the discussion) is about how the record company gives an artist a loan, makes that loan back by collecting 63% of every dollar they make on the album, while still requiring that the band pay back the full amount they loaned them out of the 37% and keeping the copyright over the works. If that's not a crooked scheme, I don't know what is.
I don't see it as a means to justify piracy, but I do see it as a means to question the RIAA when they push for draconian DRM & copyright laws in the name of "protecting the artists." Explain to me how purchasing an album legally helps the artist, if .63 for every dollar goes directly to the label, while the other 37 also goes to the label, except it's shuttled through the band's books first.
To put it in software terms, imagine a company that pays funds a group of employees to develop a software application. The company then turns around, sells it for $10mil, keeps $6.3mil off the top, and docks the pay of each of the employees that worked on it for promotion, expenses, sales channels, etc. PLUS docking them for the initial outlay of the cost of developing the software. And when it's all done, the employees don't get to keep the rights to redistribute or sell the software that they developed. Does that seem fair, even if the employees were dumb enough to sign a contract? Doesn't that seem like something labour laws were enacted to combat?
Or, to quote Jayne, ... let me do the math here ... nothin' into nothin' ... carry the nothin'."
"Ten percent of nothin' is
But that's not the issue here. If you want to make money with music, become a studio musician.
The RIAA is selling the dream of fame. You give them EVERYTHING and you get a shot at fame. And, as has been stated before, they could demand that you swim through a pool of sewage and if you refused, there would be someone else right behind you who would take that offer and think you were an idiot.
IF you did not want the easy mega money and bought into the lie that was the "rock star" then as a musician you can make money and do decently at it.
Expecting you to be coddled and have wads of cash thrown at you so you can screw off, I mean "create art" is utter bullshit.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.