Let's sit at home and bitch about business models we don't understand, live off our parents, and play video games that we paid $50 a piece for until our eyes bug out while paying $1 a can for the sugar water we chug all day.
It happened. Did you miss it? It was called MP3.com. Thousands of acts, unencumbered by labels, producing music in their home studios, and nobody wanted what they had to offer. Why?
Just curious--do you understand the difference between revenue and profit? For instance, you state that labels get 65% of the profits from iTMS. Since Apple owns iTMS, they would be entitled to 100% of the profit from that venture. The record labels may, in fact, receive 65% of the revenue. If that is the case, that doesn't mean they are making 65 cents in profit per song, because record labels have expenses like marketing, debt service, and so on. So lets review: profit is the return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met. And in point of fact, most of the record labels are not profitable at all right now. Hope this helps!
All great art is made by starving artists? What a load of pompous crap. Michelangelo wasn't starving. In fact, he died rich. His work was very well subsidized. As was Leonardo Di Vinci's. The Beatles seem to have made pretty good work after they had some money in their pockets. As did Bob Dylan. Your opinions about what an artist should or shouldn't be are just that--opinions. And I think it's a fairly safe assumption that no artist would care one whit about what you think. Furthermore, given the choice, I would wager that almost all artists would rather get paid than starve. But hey, if it makes you feel better to come up with stupid rationalizations for why you don't want to pay for music, knock yourself out!
I think you may misunderstand what your fair use rights are. Here you go for reference:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The original intent of fair use was to protect academic use and criticism. And at the end of the day, there is a fairly strong argument that wholesale copying does in fact limit the potential market for the work.
As for your fair price comment, adjusted for inflation, a record that cost $4.99 in 1964 would cost $26 today. Music has gotten significantly cheaper while real income has risen. The cold hard fact is that people would just rather take music than pay for it. And all the justification is just, well, justification.
Where are the massive profit margins for record labels? Last time I checked they were laying off thousands of people and consolodating to try and survive. Time Warner just sold off Warner Bros. records because it was awash in red ink. Is your comment based on facts that you can substantiate?
You have no idea what you are talking about. AOL proved cd's don't cost shit to make? Do you read the news? Do you understand how AOL almost dragged one of the biggest media conglomerated under with their business model? Sure, they're starting to do okay again, but only since Dick Parsons took the helm. When you graduate from high school and get a job--assuming there is a job for you--perhaps you'll learn a little bit about the rudiments of economics. And maybe you'll understand why you should consider paying for something someone else worked hard to make, and that you clearly value.
I know how you feel. I don't care either. As a songwriter who earns money from royalties, I too, don't care about anyone else's ability to earn a living. So I don't care when IT jobs get offshored, for instance. Because I know that it is incumbent upon IT workers to adapt to this new business model. It's just the way it is--the market has spoken. But actually, I do care. Because some of my friends are IT workers, and I like them, and they contribute to my city, and the general welfare of the economy and my society. Plus, I think what they contribute is worthwhile. I only wish people on slashdot felt that way about music and musicians.
As a musician myself, and one who has recorded for both major and independent labels, I'm really confused by your post. You seem to be mixing up "Publisher/Publishing" and copyright. As a songwriter, even when I was on a major label, I always have, and still do, own 100% of my publishing. That's because I elected not to sign a publishing agreement. My record label controlled only the copyrights for the recordings (and when I have been on indie labels, I even owned my own copyrights--leasing my recordings to the labels for a period of years). The reason it is important to make this distinction is that if you own your own publishing, you get 8 cents per song you wrote per CD from the first CD sold. If you write all the songs on your CD that means you get a buck per out of the gate. These are called mechanical royalties. And yes, in my experiece, the labels (at least the majors) pay you this money, even if you owe recoupable expenses against your record deal. It is important to note that I have had much LESS luck collecting mechanical royalties from independent labels. They tend to talk a good game, but pay late, if ever. So yes, I urge you to operate outside of the boundaries of the music industry. Like every single musician before and after you, that is your choice. But it will pay to learn the basic about publishing and copyright if you ever intend to release, sell or license your music.
If you bought The Beatles' Revolver in 1966 it cost about $4. Adjusted for inflation that's about $26. today. Nobody was complaining about the price of music back then. Perhaps because they found it to be valuable. Now you can get a song for 99 cents delivered directly to your home in seconds. I think that's a good value. Of course you could choose to spend that money on a can of sugar water that you will pour into your toilet in a matter of hours. Or spend 50 times that amount for a ticket to a sporting event that will be over in a few hours, etc. I still think music is worth paying for. I also don't think a buck is much money. But I have a pretty good job.
Good point about Bruce Springsteen. And Nebraska, which was recorded at home, is probably his least-selling release. I love it when people talk about how you can make great recordings at home now. If that's the case, why is nobody buying them? Home recording technology has been relatively cheap for 15 years. P2P has been around for several years. Yet nobody is having big hits (or even gaining a large audience) with those means alone. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because whether or not people realize it, they actually like music with high production values? Or that when they "discover" something via P2P, it has, chances are, already had tons of marketing money put behind it?
I'm not defending the labels, but it is funny to constantly hear people talk about the "broken business model" when they don't even understand the business model.
So I suppose you wouldn't support the Beatles, who stopped performing in 1965-66 to focus solely on recording, producing such masterpieces as Sgt. Pepper's. It's great to have an opinion, but it would be even better to recognise that the same model doesn't work for every artist. And anyway, I might ask, who are you to tell artists how they are supposed to make their living?
Just to clarify, most of the music on the iTunes Music Store is RIAA music. Which gives lie to the oft-repeated statement that the RIAA isn't doing anything to embrace this new technology, but that's another story.
Burt Bacharach? He makes far more money off of CD sales than touring. First of all, he hardly tours. Secondly, as co-writer of almost all of Dionne Warwicks hits, his primary source of income is probably from mechanical royalties (8 cents per song paid to the songwriter--which the labels always pay) on CDs sold.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about the relationship between gross and net. I'm talking about how no matter what they say they are going to do (again, in my experience ) or are contractually obliged to do, independents are no better, and often worse, than the majors at paying artists. I have had licensing deals where the arrangement was to receive 50% of the gross, and the labels I have worked with just don't pay. And then they go out of business. I hope Magnatune has a long and healthy run. But in my experience, independents are good at the lip service part, but bad at paying up.
I have recorded for major labels and independent labels, and own all the copyrights to my songs and my recordings. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but independent labels--in my experience--are no more likely (and perhaps less so) to ever actually PAY you. Sure, they can say that the artist gets 50%, but it doesn't mean anything until the check clears. And in my experience, the check just doesn't come in the first place. The major labels--again in my experience only--at least ALWAYS pay you your mechanical royalties. Those are the 8 cents and change per song you get for each CD manufactured for having written the song(s)--assuming you wrote the song(s). Indie labels, again in my experience, have never paid me my mechanicals. There are very compelling reasons for recording artists to sign with major labels. Most have to do with an opportunity to tap into a large marketing/promotion budget. Plus, any debt you have to your label is absolved when you leave. In other words, you are not personally liable for the several hundred thousand to several million dollars they invest in you if you don't make it back for the label. Try finding a bank loan with those terms.
In my opinion, you are much better off releasing your own CD than signing with an indie. Because they can say they give the artist 100%, but you'll grow old waiting for a check.
Concert attendance figures are down this year from last. In 2002 from January to May, Billboard Boxscore reported $702.3 million in overall concert revenues, along with more than 17 million in attendance. For the same period this year, Billboard Boxscore has taken in concert reports totaling $645.9 million and attendance of slightly more than 15 million.
After all, physical property too, is an artificial construct. Why should you be allowed to own your house, for instance, or pass it on to your children? Or, if you have extra rooms, homeless people should be allowed to occupy them as needed. You aren't using them, so nothing is lost, right? Let's do away with the notion of property altogether. It is a pain for everyone who wants something for free.
Most artist contracts stipulate the media the label can sell the work in (CD, cassette tape, etc.). If the label had not negotiated digital purchases of the artists work, then the label is in violation of the contract.
As for selling out, what does that mean? Please provide a clear definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's sit at home and bitch about business models we don't understand, live off our parents, and play video games that we paid $50 a piece for until our eyes bug out while paying $1 a can for the sugar water we chug all day.
It happened. Did you miss it? It was called MP3.com. Thousands of acts, unencumbered by labels, producing music in their home studios, and nobody wanted what they had to offer. Why?
Just curious--do you understand the difference between revenue and profit? For instance, you state that labels get 65% of the profits from iTMS. Since Apple owns iTMS, they would be entitled to 100% of the profit from that venture. The record labels may, in fact, receive 65% of the revenue. If that is the case, that doesn't mean they are making 65 cents in profit per song, because record labels have expenses like marketing, debt service, and so on. So lets review: profit is the return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.
And in point of fact, most of the record labels are not profitable at all right now. Hope this helps!
All great art is made by starving artists? What a load of pompous crap. Michelangelo wasn't starving. In fact, he died rich. His work was very well subsidized. As was Leonardo Di Vinci's. The Beatles seem to have made pretty good work after they had some money in their pockets. As did Bob Dylan. Your opinions about what an artist should or shouldn't be are just that--opinions. And I think it's a fairly safe assumption that no artist would care one whit about what you think. Furthermore, given the choice, I would wager that almost all artists would rather get paid than starve. But hey, if it makes you feel better to come up with stupid rationalizations for why you don't want to pay for music, knock yourself out!
What about songwriters who aren't recording artists? How are they supposed to get paid?
Since when is plain old value not good enough?
He's on the Tracy Morgan show now making more money in a week than most people make in a year.
I think you may misunderstand what your fair use rights are. Here you go for reference:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The original intent of fair use was to protect academic use and criticism. And at the end of the day, there is a fairly strong argument that wholesale copying does in fact limit the potential market for the work.
As for your fair price comment, adjusted for inflation, a record that cost $4.99 in 1964 would cost $26 today. Music has gotten significantly cheaper while real income has risen. The cold hard fact is that people would just rather take music than pay for it. And all the justification is just, well, justification.
Where are the massive profit margins for record labels? Last time I checked they were laying off thousands of people and consolodating to try and survive. Time Warner just sold off Warner Bros. records because it was awash in red ink. Is your comment based on facts that you can substantiate?
And car ads don't mention that you have to fill them with gas. Your point is?
You have no idea what you are talking about. AOL proved cd's don't cost shit to make? Do you read the news? Do you understand how AOL almost dragged one of the biggest media conglomerated under with their business model? Sure, they're starting to do okay again, but only since Dick Parsons took the helm. When you graduate from high school and get a job--assuming there is a job for you--perhaps you'll learn a little bit about the rudiments of economics. And maybe you'll understand why you should consider paying for something someone else worked hard to make, and that you clearly value.
Being a musician is a job.
I know how you feel. I don't care either. As a songwriter who earns money from royalties, I too, don't care about anyone else's ability to earn a living. So I don't care when IT jobs get offshored, for instance. Because I know that it is incumbent upon IT workers to adapt to this new business model. It's just the way it is--the market has spoken. But actually, I do care. Because some of my friends are IT workers, and I like them, and they contribute to my city, and the general welfare of the economy and my society. Plus, I think what they contribute is worthwhile. I only wish people on slashdot felt that way about music and musicians.
As a musician myself, and one who has recorded for both major and independent labels, I'm really confused by your post. You seem to be mixing up "Publisher/Publishing" and copyright. As a songwriter, even when I was on a major label, I always have, and still do, own 100% of my publishing. That's because I elected not to sign a publishing agreement. My record label controlled only the copyrights for the recordings (and when I have been on indie labels, I even owned my own copyrights--leasing my recordings to the labels for a period of years). The reason it is important to make this distinction is that if you own your own publishing, you get 8 cents per song you wrote per CD from the first CD sold. If you write all the songs on your CD that means you get a buck per out of the gate. These are called mechanical royalties. And yes, in my experiece, the labels (at least the majors) pay you this money, even if you owe recoupable expenses against your record deal. It is important to note that I have had much LESS luck collecting mechanical royalties from independent labels. They tend to talk a good game, but pay late, if ever. So yes, I urge you to operate outside of the boundaries of the music industry. Like every single musician before and after you, that is your choice. But it will pay to learn the basic about publishing and copyright if you ever intend to release, sell or license your music.
If you bought The Beatles' Revolver in 1966 it cost about $4. Adjusted for inflation that's about $26. today. Nobody was complaining about the price of music back then. Perhaps because they found it to be valuable. Now you can get a song for 99 cents delivered directly to your home in seconds. I think that's a good value. Of course you could choose to spend that money on a can of sugar water that you will pour into your toilet in a matter of hours. Or spend 50 times that amount for a ticket to a sporting event that will be over in a few hours, etc. I still think music is worth paying for. I also don't think a buck is much money. But I have a pretty good job.
Good point about Bruce Springsteen. And Nebraska, which was recorded at home, is probably his least-selling release. I love it when people talk about how you can make great recordings at home now. If that's the case, why is nobody buying them? Home recording technology has been relatively cheap for 15 years. P2P has been around for several years. Yet nobody is having big hits (or even gaining a large audience) with those means alone. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because whether or not people realize it, they actually like music with high production values? Or that when they "discover" something via P2P, it has, chances are, already had tons of marketing money put behind it? I'm not defending the labels, but it is funny to constantly hear people talk about the "broken business model" when they don't even understand the business model.
So I suppose you wouldn't support the Beatles, who stopped performing in 1965-66 to focus solely on recording, producing such masterpieces as Sgt. Pepper's. It's great to have an opinion, but it would be even better to recognise that the same model doesn't work for every artist. And anyway, I might ask, who are you to tell artists how they are supposed to make their living?
Just to clarify, most of the music on the iTunes Music Store is RIAA music. Which gives lie to the oft-repeated statement that the RIAA isn't doing anything to embrace this new technology, but that's another story.
Burt Bacharach? He makes far more money off of CD sales than touring. First of all, he hardly tours. Secondly, as co-writer of almost all of Dionne Warwicks hits, his primary source of income is probably from mechanical royalties (8 cents per song paid to the songwriter--which the labels always pay) on CDs sold.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about the relationship between gross and net. I'm talking about how no matter what they say they are going to do (again, in my experience ) or are contractually obliged to do, independents are no better, and often worse, than the majors at paying artists. I have had licensing deals where the arrangement was to receive 50% of the gross, and the labels I have worked with just don't pay. And then they go out of business. I hope Magnatune has a long and healthy run. But in my experience, independents are good at the lip service part, but bad at paying up.
I have recorded for major labels and independent labels, and own all the copyrights to my songs and my recordings. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but independent labels--in my experience--are no more likely (and perhaps less so) to ever actually PAY you. Sure, they can say that the artist gets 50%, but it doesn't mean anything until the check clears. And in my experience, the check just doesn't come in the first place. The major labels--again in my experience only--at least ALWAYS pay you your mechanical royalties. Those are the 8 cents and change per song you get for each CD manufactured for having written the song(s)--assuming you wrote the song(s). Indie labels, again in my experience, have never paid me my mechanicals. There are very compelling reasons for recording artists to sign with major labels. Most have to do with an opportunity to tap into a large marketing/promotion budget. Plus, any debt you have to your label is absolved when you leave. In other words, you are not personally liable for the several hundred thousand to several million dollars they invest in you if you don't make it back for the label. Try finding a bank loan with those terms. In my opinion, you are much better off releasing your own CD than signing with an indie. Because they can say they give the artist 100%, but you'll grow old waiting for a check.
Concert attendance figures are down this year from last. In 2002 from January to May, Billboard Boxscore reported $702.3 million in overall concert revenues, along with more than 17 million in attendance. For the same period this year, Billboard Boxscore has taken in concert reports totaling $645.9 million and attendance of slightly more than 15 million.
I'm not confused. Perhaps you are confused because you have never had an idea that had any value. I have. I like copyrights.
After all, physical property too, is an artificial construct. Why should you be allowed to own your house, for instance, or pass it on to your children? Or, if you have extra rooms, homeless people should be allowed to occupy them as needed. You aren't using them, so nothing is lost, right? Let's do away with the notion of property altogether. It is a pain for everyone who wants something for free.
Most artist contracts stipulate the media the label can sell the work in (CD, cassette tape, etc.). If the label had not negotiated digital purchases of the artists work, then the label is in violation of the contract.
As for selling out, what does that mean? Please provide a clear definition.