Just to touch on the subject of the RIAA and the true theft that occurs...
If you do the research you will find out that a band's first contract (and sometimes their ONLY contract) is NOT designed to give them any say. Remember Hootie and the Blowfish? Their debut album (Cracked Rear View) grossed over 12 million copies. Do you know how many of those 12 million their label gave away to record clubs like BMG or Columbia House (you know the buy 1 get 12 free deals)? 4 million. That is 4 million albums that they will NOT get paid for, and guess what else? It was written into their contract and they had NO say about it. This hasn't happened to them only either. This type of clause is in 98% of new band contracts. The same thing goes for promotional discs sent to record stations. The bands pay for those (and everything else including, studio time, music videos, producer's fees, mixing fees, mastering fees) out of the advance they receive from the label, but they don't get paid for the promotional copies. They have to eat the cost, and hope they can make it up somewhere else, like touring or merchandising. Furthermore, remember that the band doesn't begin to make ANY money until every dime of their advance from the record label is paid back.
The ONLY way that you begin to have any say in your contract negotiations is if you have 2 or 3 really successful albums. Only then can you begin to negotiate your contracts. Do you think a band like Green Day was able to get a really great contract when they first signed up? NO, they didn't. However, after 10+ years and more than a few platinum albums, they now have negotiating power, but most labels aren't looking that far in to the future. As far as they are concerned, most artists have a shelf life of about 3-4 years and then they are old news (just look at Britney, Christina, and Creed if you want some examples).
Remember Record Labels are nothing more than banks. They will stand there with the money and the contract, waiting to see which of the new artists will wade through the river of crap and emerge from the crap with a pen, just waiting to sign. If you don't want to sign the contract, they aren't going to beg you because they know there are others that are willing to do it, if you don't.
The Recording Industry tried to sue radio broadcasting out of existence back in the 1920's, because they feared that people wouldn't buy their records if people could listen to it for free on the radio. They were forced to evolve their business model, and have since learned that radio is their biggest method of getting music out.
The internet is much the same. The Recording Industry is trying the internet and it's users out of existence as well. Soon companies like Sony and other labels are going to find out that they can not bite the hand that feeds them.
Which is exactly why we created our online music store. It is for independent artists. Check out my sig for more info.
At the moment, we do not have song recommendations. However that is a feature that I personally would like see in the music store, and one that I will probably be adding to our queue of feature requests. Feel free to go to our forums at http://forums.ind-music.com/ and feel free to give suggestions for the site, or if there is anything else that you would like to see in the store. We need all of the feedback that we can get.
Thanks,
The easiest way to prevent the consumer from being locked in to anything, is to offer as many formats as possible. With our music store, we use Ogg Vorbis currently, but in January we will have MP3 and AAC support (with NO DRM).
The difference is that we are an indie music provider. However some people don't like indie music, and that is perfectly fine for them. There are way too many mainstream music providers that all do the same thing, and we want to offer something different.
Because we are an indie music provider, our business model is also different. Our bands get 40% of the net sale right off the bat. Also if a band sells more, they earn more. The system really does work. I wish the major labels (and the RIAA for that matter) would get a clue and realize that things can be done differently and be profitable for both sides.
Eventually Hollywood, and the RIAA will learn that they it is useless to continue to fight the very people you are trying to sell to. Once their costs become so outrageous with trying to keep up when someone cracks their system...then maybe they will stop.
I've said before in earlier posts that since I have started my music store, I am on to videos next...I can't wait, and I just hope they try to stop me.
I noticed the note at the bottom of the link that you provided, and I do appreciate that info. My understanding of it is that you can use the codec for FREE if you are using it for home/non-commercial use. We are a commercial business, so I don't think that applies to us. If I have misunderstood that, please let me know, otherwise it looks to me that you have to pay a minimum of 2k in yearly fees for the MP3 codec, as well as a tribute percentage in royalties for the commercial use of the codec.
I will research it and find out how much it is. Thanks for the info.
Check out our music store then. We are an independent music store, where the artist sets the price for their music. We have free downloads, as well as music for sale. We provide free software and codecs for your computer system.
Our files are in the Ogg Vorbis format as well. Check us out.
Wow, somebody's angry...just because I'm posting about this site in my sig, homepage, and post doesn't mean that I am offtopic...who gave you mod-points anyway...
Maybe instead of a band using paypal to help sell their music (where Paypal will get a significant chunk of the sale), maybe the bands should go to a site like Independent Music Online http://ind-music.com/ where the bands can make more money. This site has a payment plan set up that helps the bands earn more money, if more songs are purchased...check it out.
How about we give the artist that right to choose whether they want to give their music away for free or not...that is what we do with our website. The artist will get more freedom with us, than with the RIAA...they really need to revamp their business model.
That is exactly what we do at our music store. The artist sets the price, and can change it to whatever they want. They can give their music away for free if they choose also.
Any band can sign up with us, we don't tell you what you should be listening to...we let you choose for yourself. See my sig for more details.
yeah, I know it is shameless promotion...but the point is still the same. The net is the best method of distribution for Indie Artists. They can have a worldwide audience at their fingertips. That is what we are trying to provide.
We use Ogg Vorbis as our music file of choice for our online music service. It is a really great format that works really well. All of our files are encoded at 160k (which is about 192k or more in mp3 format).
I can't believe that more sites don't use Ogg Vorbis.
This isn't related directly to the above post, but...my question is how much of the money they are making out of suing people, will actually go back to the artists that created the music in the first place? If the record companies have a right to sue file sharers, then the artists should have a right to sue the industry for not giving them a portion of the money that the industry earns from suing file sharers...it's only fair right?
"independent
catelogue
lable
add in the puncutation :
whats
its
thats
will that do ?"
Ok, so you are telling me that you spelled those words correctly? The only one you spelled correctly was "independent".
"Catelogue" is spelled http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=catalog
Catalog or Catalogue. Both meanings are the exact same.
"lable" is spelled http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=label
Label
maybe I am totally missing something here...
Slashdot Mirror
cool, they even used my thread at spreadfirefox http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/20564
I sent this article in at around 12:45 pm CST, but mine was rejected. Even though the content is the exact same. What a shame...
Again, at the risk of being modded offtopic...
e ases/1.5
Firefox 1.5 is available for download from the Mozilla FTP site.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel
At the risk of being modded offtopic... Firefox 1.5 is available at the Mozilla FTP site. ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rele ases/1.5
Just to touch on the subject of the RIAA and the true theft that occurs...
If you do the research you will find out that a band's first contract (and sometimes their ONLY contract) is NOT designed to give them any say. Remember Hootie and the Blowfish? Their debut album (Cracked Rear View) grossed over 12 million copies. Do you know how many of those 12 million their label gave away to record clubs like BMG or Columbia House (you know the buy 1 get 12 free deals)? 4 million. That is 4 million albums that they will NOT get paid for, and guess what else? It was written into their contract and they had NO say about it. This hasn't happened to them only either. This type of clause is in 98% of new band contracts. The same thing goes for promotional discs sent to record stations. The bands pay for those (and everything else including, studio time, music videos, producer's fees, mixing fees, mastering fees) out of the advance they receive from the label, but they don't get paid for the promotional copies. They have to eat the cost, and hope they can make it up somewhere else, like touring or merchandising. Furthermore, remember that the band doesn't begin to make ANY money until every dime of their advance from the record label is paid back.
The ONLY way that you begin to have any say in your contract negotiations is if you have 2 or 3 really successful albums. Only then can you begin to negotiate your contracts. Do you think a band like Green Day was able to get a really great contract when they first signed up? NO, they didn't. However, after 10+ years and more than a few platinum albums, they now have negotiating power, but most labels aren't looking that far in to the future. As far as they are concerned, most artists have a shelf life of about 3-4 years and then they are old news (just look at Britney, Christina, and Creed if you want some examples).
Remember Record Labels are nothing more than banks. They will stand there with the money and the contract, waiting to see which of the new artists will wade through the river of crap and emerge from the crap with a pen, just waiting to sign. If you don't want to sign the contract, they aren't going to beg you because they know there are others that are willing to do it, if you don't.
It's not a penis. It is the neck of a guitar. I can't believe I actually had to respond to a comment like this...
The Recording Industry tried to sue radio broadcasting out of existence back in the 1920's, because they feared that people wouldn't buy their records if people could listen to it for free on the radio. They were forced to evolve their business model, and have since learned that radio is their biggest method of getting music out. The internet is much the same. The Recording Industry is trying the internet and it's users out of existence as well. Soon companies like Sony and other labels are going to find out that they can not bite the hand that feeds them. Which is exactly why we created our online music store. It is for independent artists. Check out my sig for more info.
At the moment, we do not have song recommendations. However that is a feature that I personally would like see in the music store, and one that I will probably be adding to our queue of feature requests. Feel free to go to our forums at http://forums.ind-music.com/ and feel free to give suggestions for the site, or if there is anything else that you would like to see in the store. We need all of the feedback that we can get. Thanks,
The easiest way to prevent the consumer from being locked in to anything, is to offer as many formats as possible. With our music store, we use Ogg Vorbis currently, but in January we will have MP3 and AAC support (with NO DRM). The difference is that we are an indie music provider. However some people don't like indie music, and that is perfectly fine for them. There are way too many mainstream music providers that all do the same thing, and we want to offer something different. Because we are an indie music provider, our business model is also different. Our bands get 40% of the net sale right off the bat. Also if a band sells more, they earn more. The system really does work. I wish the major labels (and the RIAA for that matter) would get a clue and realize that things can be done differently and be profitable for both sides.
Eventually Hollywood, and the RIAA will learn that they it is useless to continue to fight the very people you are trying to sell to. Once their costs become so outrageous with trying to keep up when someone cracks their system...then maybe they will stop. I've said before in earlier posts that since I have started my music store, I am on to videos next...I can't wait, and I just hope they try to stop me.
I noticed the note at the bottom of the link that you provided, and I do appreciate that info. My understanding of it is that you can use the codec for FREE if you are using it for home/non-commercial use. We are a commercial business, so I don't think that applies to us. If I have misunderstood that, please let me know, otherwise it looks to me that you have to pay a minimum of 2k in yearly fees for the MP3 codec, as well as a tribute percentage in royalties for the commercial use of the codec.
I will research it and find out how much it is. Thanks for the info.
Check out our music store then. We are an independent music store, where the artist sets the price for their music. We have free downloads, as well as music for sale. We provide free software and codecs for your computer system.
Our files are in the Ogg Vorbis format as well. Check us out.
http://ind-music.com/
Wow, somebody's angry...just because I'm posting about this site in my sig, homepage, and post doesn't mean that I am offtopic...who gave you mod-points anyway...
Maybe instead of a band using paypal to help sell their music (where Paypal will get a significant chunk of the sale), maybe the bands should go to a site like Independent Music Online http://ind-music.com/ where the bands can make more money. This site has a payment plan set up that helps the bands earn more money, if more songs are purchased...check it out.
How about we give the artist that right to choose whether they want to give their music away for free or not...that is what we do with our website. The artist will get more freedom with us, than with the RIAA...they really need to revamp their business model.
That is exactly what we do at our music store. The artist sets the price, and can change it to whatever they want. They can give their music away for free if they choose also.
Any band can sign up with us, we don't tell you what you should be listening to...we let you choose for yourself. See my sig for more details.
I sincerely hope so...we need some innovation, and some revolution in our media and technology fronts.
After I revolutionize the music industry....movies are my next goal...
That should be more of a job for an encryption than DRM, although I can see the point you are making.
yeah, I know it is shameless promotion...but the point is still the same. The net is the best method of distribution for Indie Artists. They can have a worldwide audience at their fingertips. That is what we are trying to provide.
There was a recent article on newsforge about a new indie music store, that is similiar to iTunes.
9 4238.shtml?tid=33&tid=113&tid=132
http://business.newsforge.com/business/05/07/28/1
We use Ogg Vorbis as our music file of choice for our online music service. It is a really great format that works really well. All of our files are encoded at 160k (which is about 192k or more in mp3 format).
I can't believe that more sites don't use Ogg Vorbis.
This isn't related directly to the above post, but...my question is how much of the money they are making out of suing people, will actually go back to the artists that created the music in the first place? If the record companies have a right to sue file sharers, then the artists should have a right to sue the industry for not giving them a portion of the money that the industry earns from suing file sharers...it's only fair right?
lol, totally my mistake. I just now figured out that you were referring to the original post by Anonymous Coward...my bad. :)
"independent catelogue lable add in the puncutation : whats its thats will that do ?" Ok, so you are telling me that you spelled those words correctly? The only one you spelled correctly was "independent". "Catelogue" is spelled http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=catalog Catalog or Catalogue. Both meanings are the exact same. "lable" is spelled http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=label Label maybe I am totally missing something here...