Stupid Artists: They only get $1.
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
After 4 emails to the RIAA "Question and Answer" email address, I have still not received a reply as to the industry average that artists receive for each CD sold.
However, whilst watching VH-1's "Behind the Music" last night, I gained some insight. It seams the Goo Goo Dolls foolishly signed a deal with Metal Blade Records in which they only got about $.30 for each unit sold. A lawyer hired by the band to sue Metal Blade and renogiate a better deal with them, said that new bands typically get 3x that much. Oh, wow. A whole buck...split between 4 band members for 2-3 million unit sales.
A fair chunk of change...BUT...I bet that some savvy label could get them a lot more dough by selling it for a lot less by employing new technology.
I agree with you there. He seams to have a slight grasp on what's going on. And I have no problem with their action.
For a second, I thought he'd tell us how much they make off the sale of a $20 CD. I've been peppering the RIAA "email" link with that question for a few weeks now.
Labels and record companies will always exist...but it won't necessarily be Sony, BMG or any of the other RIAA bedbuddies. It will be places like MP3.com, Amazon.com (you watch...they've already started publishing books...why not music?), or just about anybody else out there savvy enough to use online resources to promote music. Sounds like Metallica didn't get much support for the label. Ten bucks says they're scared to stir the pot and allow artists to find out they can do better "outside the box".
Bottom line...if I buy a CD from say...an MP3.com type company for $5...maybe $4 of it goes to the artist. If I buy it from Best Buy for $20 and the artist only gets $2. It won't take long for the artist to realize they only need to sell half as many to make the same amount of money. And I'm betting they don't even get $2 for each CD sold.
Because they know their days are numbered. Artist X signs a deal with a label, and with that comes all the RIAA support, BMI, ASCAP, etc. Label then sells Artist X's work for outrageous amounts, so they can give a cut to RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, themselves, etc. Artist X gets tiny percentage of the revenues. Now comes a new way to promote and distribute that same content. If Artist X has a significant audience, they can now sell that content at a drastically lower price, AND get more of the revenues in the end. As much as 80-90% more! If Artist X is not well-known, he finds other more dynamic organizations willing to promote and sell the work for less than the biga$$ labels. Maybe he sells only 50,000 copies, instead of 500,000. But if he's keeping just 10% more of the revenues, he won't care. Just wait until Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble start publishing works by well-known authors. BN's already done it with Stephan King. They're not looking for volume. They're looking for end profit. The labels will have to change. The RIAA has no future. Their future cannot even be legislated. I had a friend who wrote some music. Another composer wanted to put his music in a book. My friend looked into "protecting" his work. Turns out, he would have made absolutely nothing (and would have forfeited some legal costs) had he aligned with an agency. In the end, he settled for $300 bucks from the author of the book and felt pretty darn lucky to have made anything. I have no problem with an artist securing intellectual property rights, or maximizing profits from their work. I have a problem with spending the amount the labels ask me to. If the artists are smart, they will see this and the life expectancy of the RIAA will be numbered in days, not years.
Slashdot Mirror
After 4 emails to the RIAA "Question and Answer" email address, I have still not received a reply as to the industry average that artists receive for each CD sold.
However, whilst watching VH-1's "Behind the Music" last night, I gained some insight. It seams the Goo Goo Dolls foolishly signed a deal with Metal Blade Records in which they only got about $.30 for each unit sold. A lawyer hired by the band to sue Metal Blade and renogiate a better deal with them, said that new bands typically get 3x that much. Oh, wow. A whole buck...split between 4 band members for 2-3 million unit sales.
A fair chunk of change...BUT...I bet that some savvy label could get them a lot more dough by selling it for a lot less by employing new technology.
Stupid artists.
I agree with you there. He seams to have a slight grasp on what's going on. And I have no problem with their action.
For a second, I thought he'd tell us how much they make off the sale of a $20 CD. I've been peppering the RIAA "email" link with that question for a few weeks now.
Labels and record companies will always exist...but it won't necessarily be Sony, BMG or any of the other RIAA bedbuddies. It will be places like MP3.com, Amazon.com (you watch...they've already started publishing books...why not music?), or just about anybody else out there savvy enough to use online resources to promote music. Sounds like Metallica didn't get much support for the label. Ten bucks says they're scared to stir the pot and allow artists to find out they can do better "outside the box".
Bottom line...if I buy a CD from say...an MP3.com type company for $5...maybe $4 of it goes to the artist. If I buy it from Best Buy for $20 and the artist only gets $2. It won't take long for the artist to realize they only need to sell half as many to make the same amount of money. And I'm betting they don't even get $2 for each CD sold.
Because they know their days are numbered. Artist X signs a deal with a label, and with that comes all the RIAA support, BMI, ASCAP, etc. Label then sells Artist X's work for outrageous amounts, so they can give a cut to RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, themselves, etc. Artist X gets tiny percentage of the revenues. Now comes a new way to promote and distribute that same content. If Artist X has a significant audience, they can now sell that content at a drastically lower price, AND get more of the revenues in the end. As much as 80-90% more! If Artist X is not well-known, he finds other more dynamic organizations willing to promote and sell the work for less than the biga$$ labels. Maybe he sells only 50,000 copies, instead of 500,000. But if he's keeping just 10% more of the revenues, he won't care. Just wait until Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble start publishing works by well-known authors. BN's already done it with Stephan King. They're not looking for volume. They're looking for end profit. The labels will have to change. The RIAA has no future. Their future cannot even be legislated. I had a friend who wrote some music. Another composer wanted to put his music in a book. My friend looked into "protecting" his work. Turns out, he would have made absolutely nothing (and would have forfeited some legal costs) had he aligned with an agency. In the end, he settled for $300 bucks from the author of the book and felt pretty darn lucky to have made anything. I have no problem with an artist securing intellectual property rights, or maximizing profits from their work. I have a problem with spending the amount the labels ask me to. If the artists are smart, they will see this and the life expectancy of the RIAA will be numbered in days, not years.