Musicians vs. RIAA At USA Today 615
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today has an article about the growing friction between recording artists and the 5 major labels which make up the RIAA. Many issues are covered, including copyright reform, fraudulent accounting on the part of record labels, and how selling a quarter million albums can leave you owing your label $14,000."
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
levine
Because... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Because... (Score:4, Interesting)
I see it here in Europe when they do star talent search. What do they look for? A voice, looks and dance ability. Gee whiz when did music become voice looks and dance ability? I always thought music was the ability of the artist to create something that we enjoy listening to. And if the show is good, well more power to you.
The other problem with people like Brittany Spears is that those are the people where we "steal" music in the form of napster. With talent though, most people I know will actually buy the content since they think they are actually getting value.
Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
And since they also control and finance their own bands, and control the content, and distribution and sales, and on and on. I'm sure you get the picture, they exist because yes they do control it. And they will continue controling it until the average consumer(not us) realize that this isn't good. Or we can convince the goverment that these guy are out to hurt us.
start your own label (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, most sheep (er, consumers) don't care about the politics or anything because they're not told to. They're just told to go buy such and such's album because it is cool. You don't want to be different, do you?
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like being screwed by your landlord. You know you don't like it. You should leave. But where will you live?
It should be interesting as these multi-year contracts start to run out, and artists start to look for other solutions. (Unfortunately there aren't any other great solutions. Most of the good ones lack any real marketing) With sales not increasing, and artists speaking up, the Big-5 might actually have to do something.
Or maybe not. I'm sure there's always another "Korn" willing to sign their lives away for fame.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe one of the problems in the industry is that multi-year deals are actually kind of out of flavour. Labels used to look for career musicians. Now they rent you for an album; if you sell, you might get one more album. Rince, lather, repeat.
That is to say that we might not have to wait that long
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article.. it's actually much worse than 'multi-year' right now. It's multi-[b]album[/b]. You sign to do say, 6 albums. If you don't sell well they can shelve you. No studio time, no advertising, nada. And you can't go anywhere else until you give them 5 more "releasable" albums. The company, of course, is the sole arbiter of what is "releasable" or not. Joan Osborn, after her first hit "What if God Was One of US", turned in two complete and finished albums both of which were rejected by the labels. That means she spent nearly 3 years working, owes them money on it, and of course the label still owns those songs even though they don't want them.
Yeah, they might not release any more albums after the first. They might just "rent" you for an album. But they make damn sure the contract keeps you out of anyone elses hands for the duration just in case.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I faced this question a few decades ago, I did what a few thousand other young musicians with good math grades did: I went into computers. In particular, I got mixed up with communications software. We've spent the past quarter century building the recording industry's coffin.
If you think I'm kidding, ask a few "internet" programmers. You'll have a lot of trouble finding even one who isn't an amateur musician. Given the choice of a living making music, most of them would have jumped at it. But that choice wasn't available to us. So we built another kind of communication system.
This wasn't an accident. In high school, I understood full well that I'd have to be a total idiot (or an addicted gambler, which amounts to the same thing) to go into music as a profession. Only the owners of the recording companies made any money then and now. The top-selling bands couldn't live off their royalties.
And if you think the development of RIAA-killing software is an accident, go to the usenet archives and google for the topic. You'll find lots of discussion of how and why this was going to put music (and other information) back in the hands of the people who create it.
We haven't won yet. The political system and the courts could still take it all away from us and hand control of the Internet to the fat cats. But we will have tried.
The main battle now, actually, is to prevent the growing stranglehold on the "last mile" by the merged cable/phone companies. The best chance there is for all of you to go out and buy lots of wireless hardware. If we get the Net redundantly connected this way, there's no way they will be able to block the data path between artists and audience.
And look seriously at using IPv6. The commercial gang hasn't noticed it yet. It provides a great arena for unmoderated development. It includes encryption at the packet level, so they can't track what you're doing. By the time they wake up and try to take control, we can have a "distribution" system that they can't kill.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, I'm in a similar position - only instead of communication (well, I did do a lot of Internet work in the 90's...) I now work for Access Music, making: musical instruments.
(See www.access-music.de for details...)
I can guarantee you, my industry (musical instruments) has no desire whatsoever to see DMCA implemented in our devices, anywhere. The moment the RIAA starts coming onto our turf, there will be some *serious* upheavals, thats for sure...
As a hardcore geek, I've been running from the RIAA for the last 3 years. I have no interest whatsoever in pandering to their will, and neither do any of the musical instrument mfr's I know of
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo! The conspiracy isn't aimed at replacing the RIAA with another monopolistic organization. The point of the nefarious plan is to build a communication system that can't be monopolized and controlled. So you and your friends can make your own recordings directly available to your audience under whatever terms you prefer.
Recall that the DoD's original requirements were for a system with redundant paths, and the ability to automatically determine routes. The idea was that as long as there exists a data path between two machines, the routine software will discover the path and deliver the packets. As John Gilmor has been quoted as saying, the Net treats censorship as packet damage and routes around it.
All those people who are setting up their own web sites do "distribute" their music are following the scenario. And some of them are making money this way. They're just not sharing their money with the big corporations.
The only thing that can stop this is if the corporations can take control and prevent you from putting your own stuff online. They are trying, of course, and we can all hope that they'll fail.
Fear the Parrot! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fear the Parrot! (Score:2, Insightful)
The first is that tapes still cost less then CD's, with very small quantities made, and a cost increase to the companies that is almost an order of magnitude.
The second is that cheap DVD's are cheaper the cheap CDs. Why the hell are old movies in the bargin bin 2 for 10 dollors, and semi old ones 10 to dollors each.
I got Blazing Saddles for 8.99. A CD from that era would still cost me 14.00 at the same store.
Why? is the MPAA really that much easier to deal with then the RIAA?
Re:Fear the Parrot! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fear the Parrot! (Score:3, Insightful)
What is bad with girl bands, boy bands, Brittany type artists is that the initial step is missing. They clump together a bunch of no talents and then throw them on the stage to perform like circus acts. And they do this with new acts every year. This way the no-talents will not get too pushy with the labels. And the labels can keep the profits up because they can give a "once in a lifetime" offer for stardom!
somebody just defined the RIAA in a sentence (Score:2, Informative)
bingo!
-- james
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
It does make one wonder. We're not talking about dime-store independent artists here.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Interesting)
It could also be because these musicians don't nearly have the selling power of the pop-crap that has infected today's music scene and the pop-crap musicians aren't yet motivated to leave the labels.
It's the record LABELS (Score:2, Redundant)
5 major labels which make up the RIAA
RIAA exists to further the interests (as they perceive them anyway) of the 5 major record labels that created it. The odd thing is that the record labels would rather legislate and sue themselves into further power and existance rather than deliver any sort of value to the customer. It seem to be a loosing strategy to me.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the politicians like them. After all, they provide some pretty large campaign contributions.
Re:Labor unions and the mob. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unions make sense for the most part autoworks truck drivers school teachers. these are groups that need repesentation and have very little power, (they are easy to replace).
Millionars shouldn't have unions like the MLB players union is stupid.
As for the MOB the mob exsits to make money any way possible. If the mob could make money easly by running down the street naked they would. and they would have their budies do and their employees do it to increase their profit. The mob is a group of buisness men they just take it a bit more searously then the rest of the world.
Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
z(p)
http://www.zenapolae.com
Re:Easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Easy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:2)
Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't do this stuff in a vacuum - the image sells, so blame your kids for wanting a Puff Daddy instead of a De La Soul, or wanting a Wu Tang instead of a Del tha Funky Homosapien.
There are plenty of positive, concious rappers out there who do not condone the "thug life". But the CD buying public drives the demand for the thug life
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else get Jar-Jar flashbacks when they read this?
Re:Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that "rap" is almost entirely sold on image today. However, pinning it on white people or executives strikes me as being rather naive.
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
De La Soul
Tribe Called Quest
Black Eyed Peas
Common
Mos Def
Talib Kwali
The Roots
The list goes on. That was my point. There are lots of positive rappers, but blame the marketers for not trying to sell it to you and the kids for not being interested in searching for a truth outside of the allure of gansta rap.
As a slight aside, something that irks me about the dismissal of Gangsta Rap as having no redeeming value
There's plenty of good rap out there like there is plenty of good Nu Metal bands out there. But like food, the better it is, the less people will like it, and thus the less it will be promoted into the public conciousness.
Re:Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Jazz Combos
Stage Bands
Rock Bands
Concert Orchestras
Thats all terribly OT, but this thread has made me some karma, so why not burn a little.
RIAA = obsolete (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope that legislation doesn't allow a big dying industry to survive longer than it should.. it impedes both artists and consumers from moving forward and finding the best way for musicians (not the associated industry) to succeed.
Re:RIAA = obsolete (Score:2)
Considering that legislation is being bought and new laws supporting the Big-5 keep coming out, it doesn't look like your wish is working.
Time to seek alternatives. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time to seek alternatives. (Score:2, Interesting)
z(p)
http://www.zenapolae.com --- our independent record label
Re:Time to seek alternatives. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with that is, I like CD's, I like records, I already buy from the artists and indie labels.
I'm not going to pay money for the bands MP3's or ogg's.
I want a physical object. I don't want a CD-R, I want an actual physical disc of some sort.
I enjoy the artwork on the CD's/Records.
I don't enjoy the sound quality of MP3.
Above and beyond that, you can't get rich and famous from selling songs off of a website. You need people to promote you, to put you all over the place, etc. Why does this matter? Because many people get into the business to make money! Yes that's right, most of the acts on major labels who make money want to keep it that way.
Yeah, sorry about the rant, I'm just a little tired.
--xPhase
You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:2)
*"Everybody" being defined here as the shareholders, who own the government, which is the only body legally empowered to put people's heads on pikes.
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't your piracy of their talent 99% of the problem?
Clear Channel / Payola (Score:5, Informative)
The Clear Channel / Payola problem is one of the most serious issues in the music industry today. It is one of the primary causes of the crap that's coming out of the major labels.
If you haven't read it, you should check out Salon's great series [salon.com] on this issue.
Michael Jackson (Score:5, Funny)
Michael Jackson's recent high-profile leap onto the bandwagon was met with skepticism. In rallying support for his financial grievances against Sony Music, he asserted, "If you fight for me, you're fighting for all black people."
Sorry, I may have missed something. Why the link between Michael Jackson and black people?
Re:Michael Jackson (Score:2)
The hypocricy of this act is so blatant that I wonder how could Jackson even look into the mirror afterwards.
Re:Michael Jackson (Score:2)
Because he IS the "Man in the Mirror"!
lol
Re:Michael Jackson (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Michael Jackson (Score:3, Funny)
He was born a poor black boy, and he'll die a rich white woman.
Re:Since when do WHITE PEOPLE determine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Sharpton is an opportunistic vulture. Nobody's taken him seriously for several years. Besides, Michael suprised even Sharpton when he called Tommy Mottola a racist (see the MTV article [mtv.com]).
Race is entirely a social construct. There is only one race, the human race. We're all the same color, just different shades. It is easily possible to be closer genetically to a person of a different so-called race, than somebody that looks fairly similar to yourself.
Re:Since when do WHITE PEOPLE determine... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, he keeps reinforcing a victim mindset.
Harm or revolutionize? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it might be bad to an executive like Copeland, who relies on sub-talented "artists" like Britney Spears to generate income for that new yacht. But this actually be the wakeup call needed to actually *develop* new artists, rather than toss them out there like so many Big Macs for huge immediate profits.
The whole industry needs an enema, and I am very happy to see some *real* artists starting to voice their concerns. There may be hope after all
Original Steve Albini article (Score:5, Informative)
You can read the original piece by the brilliant Steve Albini here [negativland.com], and probably lots of other places [google.com]. Thanks to some slashdot comment I read last week but have since lost.
Hmm, never thought of it like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
I never thought of it like this before, but that's really what happens. What's worse - there's nothing more frustrating than a band changing labels -- the old label still owns all the band's old music, which unfortunately means that they take some pretty good stuff and stick it in a basement somewhere. This is where Janis Ian's suggestion of letting artist re-release their out-of-print stuff would really be of use. Of course, that would require the RIAA to give up some control...
Leann Rimes (Score:5, Interesting)
First, her parents signed her up with Curb Records for TEN albums when she was 12. She grossed over $300,000,000 for Curb Records. That's right, a third of a billion dollars.
When her parents got divorced, her mom got to ride horses with the WalMart heirs, her dad lives in luxury, and Leann has enough to buy herself a used car.
There are laws that are supposed to protect child stars from getting fucked like this. There isn't a single honest judge to enforce them, though. Leann is suing her dad, her label, and probably her mother, agents, and promoters. It's the judges that will do her in.
Re:Leann Rimes (Score:2)
ITYM Lawyers. That's the only part of this little food chain that's guaranteed any dosh.
source of bad music? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:source of bad music? (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine if Vincent van Gogh got stuck in a contract where he had to produce 6-8 paintings but all of them had to look and feel just like Starry Night. The guy probably would have become depressed and killed himself.
Re:source of bad music? (Score:2)
Record company Scheiße Records sends out scouts to find up and coming bands. A scout comes back with this new find from Orange County in California. Scheiße writes up a contract that has several provisions in it. The first is the band signs over all rights to their music to Scheiße with royalties paid to them from distribution (record sales, radio airplay, miscellenous things with their band name on it they license to sell) in return. There's also a provision in there saying the band is contracted for X number of records which is usually an insanely large number all things considered. Then there are things like promotion of the record which entails tours and other such stuff.
The kicker is the small print, besides the record company owning your work and thus having you by the balls, they include what are called recoupables. The record company recoups all expenses involved in your contract. Everything from production cost of your CDs to the studio time of your recording sessions to your new guitar is taken out of your bottom line. The record company can't lose money on you even if you only have a single hit ever because everything they shell out comes back to them, usually with a bit of interest.
A record companies doesn't care if you don't have the talent to produce 6 albums. They usually set the number exceedingly high so a band faults on their contract bot having enough creative energy to produce that much work. Like I said, they don't lose money on one hit wonders. If you're that band you come out with the sore ass because your portion of the money made is being picked at by all the expenses you incurred. Poor music is just a result of a record exec needing a quick fix for a couple quarters so they can gouge radio stations and the CD buying public wanting their craptacular album. One hit wonders are all part of the scam in fact. Without them a record company would have lean periods between the Nivanas, Pearl Jams, and Aerosmiths rearing their musical heads.
Pay back Bo Diddley! (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if this includes the artists who died penniless. (Back pension to the widowed families)
What would be nice is if they could reverse the law that lets the Big-5 keep the copyrights forever. Retrieval of copyrights back to the family of deseased artists could be a form of income for them.
Although it's possible the Big-5 think of these as revenue for themselves, the fact is, they sit on them without re-releasing songs because it's not "profitable" to them. These families have smaller overhead, and it could be profitable for THEM.
"out-of-print" -- Preposterous! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, times change, and so do old justifications. I'll posit that "out-of-print" is as obsolete as 8-track tapes and that the RIAA are sitting there hording the art instead of looking into other revenue streams. This allows them to blame new technologies like P2P and home CD burning for lost sales.
Put simply, there is no reason why anything has to be "out-of-print" now, and certainly no reason why the record labels should get away with sitting on their asses for the last 4-5 years complaining that their business model is now in jeopardy due to the acts of "ingrates, thieves and college students". They could have had a working system online by now whose sole purpose would be to dole out "out-of-print" tunes for $0.99 to $1.99 a pop (allowing you to mix and match them on a custom CD). The overhead for such a system is minimal compared to the outlay of capital they have paid on lawyers over that same time frame.
This outlines the RIAA's motives, quite nicely, of course. Last person on the "proirity-totem-poll" is you and me. A few steps up is "the musician", whomever that may be. Above that? Every other link in the music distribution chain.
I've said this once and I'll say it again: the name of the game here is "evolve or die", and the RIAA has refused to "evolve" so now it's time to do our best to kill them off. Everyone on all sides of the equation (artists, producers, and listeners) need to think about looking into other alternatives for our music enjoyment. It will be hard, but in the long run, it may be better than what we currently have.
Re:Pay back Bo Diddley! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,48625,
Copyright has bloated from providing 14 years of protection a century ago to 70 years beyond the creator's death now, he said, and has become a tool of large corporations eager to indefinitely prolong their control of a market. Irving Berlin's songs, for example, will not go off copyright for 140 years, he said.
Ahh, Hilary - always good for a laugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In particular, is this gem:
"While the record company could keep an artist under the old contract, they never do," RIAA chief Hilary Rosen says.
Uhm, yeah.
Tell that to Tom Petty.
Or John Fogerty.
Or Prince.
Or many others.
I'm sure they'll get a good bellylaugh out of it.
NOW is the time (Score:2)
I think there would be enough prominant artists getting involved (investing and performing) that a large popularity could be created rather quickly without even trying very hard.
I'm sure a lot of the digital distribution means would require some sane consideration that really hasn't been considered deeply, however, as most of our thought is simply "get away from RIAA." So while we're thinking of running away from RIAA, we're forgetting to think about where we run to.
Now is the time to consider that and make a move.
People will jump on the opportunity to download a 56k quality version for free and probably will buy the 128k version if they like it. Selling digital music might turn a pretty penny without much of the publishing costs.
*I* haven't thought this through but I'm sure there are many who have some really good ideas right off they top of their more experienced and thoughtful heads. But if the strength, numbers and influence of the artists protesting the RIAA's tactics, then it's high-time that competition to the RIAA is formed. Anyone else a little weary of hearing complaints without solutions?
riaa/freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this rather sarcastic:
In difficult times, it is easier and quicker to look for handy scapegoats than to search for viable solutions. Banning certain kinds of music is not the answer. RIAA continues to fight hard on both federal and state levels to block well intentioned, but seriously misguided, efforts.
But banning certain kinds of delivery mechanisms is the answer? That seems like a well intentioned, but seriously misguided effort. Instead, they should maybe search for a more viable solution.
The greater evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh great. That will be the solution. Blame the pirates for all their problems. Yet another act of misdirection.
I feel that this will all get settled over one small addition to the contracts (like limiting their indentured servant status to "only" 7 years) and then it'll be business as usual. (Basically buying more legislation so that in a few years we're at a pay-per-play market)
Copyright reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they're arguing with the RIAA about copyrights, but these artists are striving to reassert their OWN ownership over copyright, and you can bet that the majority of them will seek to protect their copyrights as vociferously and aggressively as they can.
Re:Copyright reform (Score:2)
That's fine. People will respect the individual artists a whole lot more than a heartless cartel run by a hellbitch and backed by corrupt senators.
Life, Fairness, and the dollar (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to capitalism.
Most shocking part of article (Score:5, Funny)
Someone UNDERSTOOD something Richards SAID!?
He talks like Prince writes.
Re:Most shocking part of article (Score:2)
Like he's been stoned for like his whole career more or less mannnn
So it should be:- The time where accountants like decide what music people hear (pause) is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers (wry smile at having remembered that, and thinks about pun with "we're going to do an old number now, one we used to do in the sixties" and worries for a while hence another pause), but they have terrible taste in music mannnn. (close and open eyes, see redness) I don't know how I'm going to get paid like, but like I'd rather go out into the brave new world (pause) than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots...
Keith Richards (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else get a laugh out of the fact that Keith Richards is derisively calling anyone a dinosaur ??
An idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:An idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
whatever the record company is making from the sale of a CD, you can be sure that only a very small fraction of its costs are related to producing the CD itself. marketing, office staff, physical distribution, office costs, studio time, lost money on flops, ... the list goes on.
i'm not justifying any particular price for a CD, but demanding that because a CD is cheap to make means that recorded music sold in CD format should be sold for very little is incredibly naive. the price of the product is not just the price of making the final disc.
i'm also curious at the level of complaint about this particular consumer item, when exactly the same concerns and cost/price relationship exists for most other things that we buy, particularly clothes. i don't hear many people (especially on slashdot) talking this way about t-shirts and shoes, which cost very, very little to make but sell for at least as much as a CD.support the artist not the label(if you like them) (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, at the bottom of the article page, it says "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. -- Alexander Pope"
very fitting.
See, this is why i don't buy anything from the RIAA anymore, aside from the fact that I don't want my money going to fund copyright laws that I don't want. If i want to hear them bad enough, I'll go see them when they come to town, if I hear about it, since I don't listen to the radio...but thats what band websites are for.
Tactful wording. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is to say that they could tend to tack on a few extra albums or moderately increase the artist's obligation, in addition to tacking on a lot of extra albums and/or dramatically increasing the artist's obligation in a smaller proportion of cases.
What it comes down to is this: If they're conning the artists who have been in the business a long time, they're hardly going to tell it to USA Today straight, are they?
Whose Fault Is This? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.
Perhaps they'd lose less money (and maybe make some?) if their tastes and qualifications were a little more discriminating.
Re:Whose Fault Is This? (Score:3, Insightful)
What ever will they think of next? (Score:2, Funny)
Well duh! Hello! They're performers, they're supposed to be vocal, or instrumental or something. I bet the writer was saving that one up for years.
Problem is of consumer's making (Score:2, Interesting)
Face it, most people want to hear the stuff that's on the radio-- over-produced, simplistic, commercialized goo, and we can't stand if it's not a singable tune. That's why only 5% of the artists have a hit-- because the record companies know they can't make money unless they find a musician who happens to fit that (very rare) formula. Even if they do sign an innovative group or individual, they know hardly anyone will buy the record, because they know we have horrible taste, or that we, for whatever reason, are less likely to buy it.
I work at a music store, and 99% of the requests I get are for musicians who they heard on the radio or TV. People want to be hand-fed good music, then complain when it's not good. The record companies are only trying to feed the customer what they seem to want, which is not necessarily good music.
How about this for a ridiculous contract term? (Score:5, Interesting)
Artists are paid a points royalty on sale of master recordings (while songwriters are paid publishing royalties on the sales of songs). 15% (15 points) is quite a good royalty for a new band, or even one with a hit under their belt.
But does that mean 15 points off all sales? Nope.
It means 15% of 90% of the worldwide gross. Why 90%?
Because in the 1940's (when the label business models we hate so much were established) lacquer records were still sold and many of them broke in shipment. A 10% "breakage allowance" was standard.
It still is. CDs don't break. But the labels, almost without exception, skim 10% off the top for "breakage" before even getting to recoupment. If IBM skimmed 10% off their earnings before issuing dividends the Board would be crucified. But music labels? No problem!
As for recoupment, the example given in the USA Today article is tame. I won't mention the name, but there is a band who has sold millions, for each of their more than five albums. But each time, video costs, recording costs, marketing/promotion costs, plane fares (for huge label entourages), hotel bills (for these same label execs) were all paid for by the band.
Sum total? They sold 35 million records and still OWE the label over 2 million dollars.
The system was devised in the 40's and has no place in the 21st Century. Hilary Rosen can whine all she wants, but the labels are truly in serious trouble due to their religious adherence to these ancient business models.
Re:How about this for a ridiculous contract term? (Score:4, Insightful)
But if you are a new band, with (what until lately has been) the ultimate carrot of commerical success dangled in front of you, it's difficult to not rationalize "I can make this work, after all, I just wanna get my soul, my music to my fans."
It's not till later, when the buzz fades, wisdom comes knocking and you realize that even if your fans love you, and you are selling lotsa records, that you are making no money, and subsidizing 85 (not an exaggeration) same-label bands that are not as fortunate/talented as you. It's only then that you think "hm. this might be as fair as I'd like."
True, you should have demanded better terms. But often, if a young band has the choice of signing an extremely rare recording contract (with attached advance check) or continuing to live on Friskies and ramen casserole in their parents' garage, the implications of mechanical royalty disbursment and ownership of masters in 20 years seem unimportant.
Let's try an analogy. You are on a NY street and see a guy selling brand new, shrink wrapped DV camcorders out of his trunk. People are buying six at a time. You say "hell, I'm down with this" and plunk down $75 for a cool new Bluetooth minicam.
You open the box at home and find a house brick and nothing else. You've been scammed. Ok, so you should have checked the contents right there.
But who committed the crime?
Re:How about this for a ridiculous contract term? (Score:3, Funny)
Ramen Cassarole? I know it's offtopic, but have a recipe you could throw my way? Google's suggestions seem eclectic at best.
Re:How about this for a ridiculous contract term? (Score:3, Insightful)
Odds are good that you'll sign it and hope you end up in the black.
Fact is, there's nothing about the music industry that's fair, from the recording companies, to the concert promotoers, to ticket sales. It's legalized organized crime.
Maybe your business stinks (Score:3, Interesting)
"I have a new respect for how hard it is to run a label, and I know record companies lose money on most bands," Kramer says....
What the hell? True, I'm not an ex-punk band leader or label maker, but not being able to sell bad music in a 10 block radius shouldn't be a gauge.
Maybe some type of co-op is needed. A huge number of artists get together, and with power in numbers (and dollars) able to procure the cheapest marketing, distribution, and processing they can get for their dollars. Figure out the costs, and that's what you charge the artist to put out a new record. Profits can go to the artist, with maybe a small percentage going to the investment of the co-op. Merchandise, touring/concerts, part of the working equation. Make rMTv channel (r=real) to play their own videos. Crack into the radio stations market to play their own music only.
*sigh* Probably impossible to do with the monopoly in place.
But then again, maybe it has been done, and the RIAA = the co-op.
Fraudulent accounting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Steve Alibini article (Score:2, Informative)
The income statement is a little hard to follow. For one thing, it doesn't have proper indenting for sub-items, so it's hard to tell which things should really be added up.
For those who think it's okay for bands to make nothing on recordings since they make all their money on tours--this band lost money on tours, which is typical, from what I understand.
Do you know what Hilary gets paid? (Score:2, Interesting)
And you wonder why she is so tencious about ideas which any sane person would laugh at?
Because she only cares about what most people care about: their own asses. If the music industry no longer has a need for the RIAA, what else could she possibly be qualified for?
Industry Led By Visionaries (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds a lot like the software industry
Time for change! (Score:2)
All the 'bad' stuff in this article is true! (Score:3, Informative)
The Stevel Albini blurb is an excellent read. If you're not a Hootie or Britney or Korn type (even korn being huge is weird) they you're either 100% screwed or you're never gonna make it or you're gonn land on an indie or start your own label.
Me, I tried the start your own label after 'not making it'. 'The industry' is not anything remotely to do with bringin artistic capabilities to the listening public. It is 100% about 'product', how to get that 'product' into the hands of as many people as possible and what the next 'hit' is gonna be. When 'the industry' says it loses $6mil on most acts, big fucking deal, it's your own fault. Because:
- they've completely run all the mom and pop record stores outta biz = no loyal fanbase at a word of mouth price = $3mil for radio (ugh, clear channel) & mtv promotions = Accountant: 'shit, we couldn't clear out the other 10mil units of Susie Johnson cuz people are sick of her already.' CEO: 'scerew her then. alright, dump the cd's in some poor country and jack up the fees 10% on the next 10 new acts'.
- recording an album in a pro studio is horrendiously expensive ($5k for a guy to come in a tune the room is pretty fucked up)
- they sign shitty cookie cutter bands! any orginality, forget it.
- Jim Lawer charges $500/hr. John CEO makes 10x more than Jim.
This being said, I would vomit profusely like a posessed demon and kill myself if it wasn't for many of the real musicians and labels. Look at Fugazi and Dischord. That is it!. They live the music, they do well and they don't fuck eveyone ever and drive away at the end of the day to their mansion on the hill and preach all this rhetoric shit like Rosen does.
Once you get back to the real deal about music, which is (and I don't give one rats ass what Kid Rock says - yah, lets see what he thinks in 10 years when he's been milked dry and tossed aside) that it's art and expression. Period!
Sure, you can make money at it, but 'the industry' is soooo lopsided right now that the RIAA/Rosen claims make me laugh. This stuff all ties in also with the MPAA and p2p (duh!) and DRM. These groups have been stifling artists rights for some time and now their only recourse, after 'the people' as in we, have spoken, is to go after us. Threatening to pass legislation to get 'copyrighted' material off our computers if need be!
What you can do:
1. Don't buy trash crap from Britney and the like
2. Smash your MTV (they're literally nothing but a delivery vehicle for the big 5, period!)
3. Get into your local scene. This is where the best stuff always is. And if there isn't one, make one!
4. If you find you have a p2p song that's been 'doctored' remove it. This will keep the good stuff flowin and the rage against the machine growin.
So, there is stuff we can do. We just have to get off our asses and do it. Or, lay down with the wolves...
The Last DJ (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems the streaming version is gone but you might be able to request it at a local rock & roll station.
"The Last DJ"
Well you can't turn him into a company man
You can't turn him into a whore
And the boys upstairs just don't understand anymore
Well the top brass don't like him talking so much
And he won't play what they want to play
And he don?t want to change what don't need to change
CHORUS:
There goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey hey hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
There goes the last DJ
While some folks said you gotta hang him so high
Cause you just can't do what he did
There's some things you just can't put in the minds of the kids
As we celebrate mediocrity
Our boys upstairs want to see
How much you want to pay for what you used to get for free
CHORUS
Well he got in a station down in Mexico
And sometimes it'll kind of come in
And I'll bust a move and remember how it was back then
CHORUS
three victims of the death of the "old system" (Score:3, Interesting)
they are nothing but the scribes who are bitching at their own demise as they see the newer technology of the printing press making them obsolete. there have already been too many words written to describe the uselessness of their existance now.. i won't go over it again.
2. musicians with not enough talent to make a living.
shitty bands and guys that can't play their own instrument - whatever it may be - cannot draw an audience will not be able to survive without riaa companies. They don't get word of mouth. they don't get props on indie web radio. i know some of these guys. they are close friends. they have day jobs and they play for fun. that's completely legit and i'm all for that. in other words - they are you and me... guys who need to stop thinking that they are rock stars and get real fscking jobs.
3. songwriters.
i'm not impressed with songwriters. i've read enough web pages with the rantings of college students that can qualify as lyrics... if you can really write lyrics - get with a real good musician and split the income from the shows or cd revenues. songwriting does not merit an entire industry or copyright infrasructre to support them. They need to get real fscking jobs like the shitty bands, you, and me.
the winners?
you and me can just get back to enjoying music, taking it with us, and not worrying about the copyright gestapo DoSing my DSL line, or throwing me in jail because i didn't have the right key to play the wrong music.
There is an alternative for musicians . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
So, who needs the RIAA?
I saw a documentary on the TV about her a year or two ago. As I recall, she said, "Once I realized how much it actually cost to produce a CD as to what the sale price was, I though I'd be an idiot to give away all that money." (This is not a direct quote from Ms. McKennit, just a vague recollection filtered through my cerebellum.)
The documentary showed her Quinlan Road offices [quinlanroad.com] where she employ 3 or 5 people.
The downside of this, of course, is you have to be able to run a business, and we all have some musician buddies to whom this does not apply!
ESD Works? (Score:3, Insightful)
The interesting part to me, as near as I can tell, is that despite being easily available, these aren't available for download everywhere like MP3's are. Various reasons for this including the populatity level of the material, but I think the #1 reason was that, since people bought these things and then downloaded them, they're less likely to share them. "Buy your own!" is the idea. How dumb is it to buy something online and then let everyone else have it for free. People are more likely to share things they download for free.
My point is this: a different distribution method for music - in this case letting people pay for unrestricted downloads (i.e., no DRM, let people burn it) would work. People wouldn't give them to other people, they'd let them go download their own. Dvorak [pcmag.com] had a brilliant editorial on this - with no manufacutring/retail/shipping fees you let the people pay for the rights to distribute the stuff themselves and you wind up with more money for both execs and artists.
Would you still steal music? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RAC has a good web site: http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/ [recordinga...lition.com]
Would you still share music illegally if the artist was getting the money directly?
I think the biggest reason that a lot of people laugh off issues about music sharing is because we all know that the people complaining about music theft are the company fat cats, not the starving artists. The individual artist really isn't that affected when people share their music.
Check the numbers.
The RIAA lists around 800 recording companies as members. There are probably around 1,000 artists per recording company.
Say Billy BadGuy hooks up with his 50 friends, each of which has 200 CDs that they have all ripped.
By some magical twist of fate, no two people have the same CD, so we have a total of 10,000 different CDs that exist on the network to be illegally shared.
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 800 recording companies = $200 per company
Realistically there are probably only about 20 recording companies that likely produced the majority of those CDs.
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 20 real recording companies = $8,000 per company
On the artists side of the fence, if we assume that we have 10,000 different artists:
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 10,000 artists = $16 per artist
Realistically there are probably a few repeats, let's say 1/4 of the CDs are paired up with one other from the same artist. That means that 2,500 CDs belong to 1,250 artists, and the remaining 7,500 CDs belong to 7,500 artists.
(2,500 CDs * $16) / 1,250 artists = $32 per artist (for 1,250 artists)
(10,000 CDs * $16) / 8,750 artists = ~$18.29 per artist (average for artists)
Pair all of this up with the average number of (signed) artists in the world:
(7,500 artists + 1,250 popular artists) / 800,000 artists = 0.0109375
That means that 1 percent of the artists are paying about $18 per 50 geeks sharing files, with the majority of them paying only $16.
Now to poke at the RIAA's numbers some. They reported that they lost around 600 million dollars from 2000 to 2001 because of illegal file sharing. Using our above example:
$600,000,000 lost / (10,000 CDs * $16) = 3,750 occurrences
That means that the above example of 50 people with 200 unique CDs would have to have been repeated (uniquely) almost 3,750 times in order for the RIAA's posted losses to be correct.
3,750 cases * 51 people per case = 191,250 unique naughty people
(How many users are on SlashDot?)
On top of that, their numbers would fail again if any one of the almost 200,000 people bought any CDs based on what they heard on these networks.
Now any monkey with a keyboard should be able to sit here with these numbers and crunch out some figures, but in 99 out of 100 calculations, you're going to see this:
Recording Artists + Recording Companies = RIAA Monopoly
Besides all our fun number crunching, the article had some pretty good points.
"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid."
Not only do they still own the house, they can kick you out of it, sell it, and keep all the money.
Then when you try to buy a new house with a different bank, they sue your ass!
"...virtually all contracts renegotiated after a hit album added terms favoring the artist..."
Well that's a no-brainer. Think of it as a poor man with a $5,000 house that the bank is trying to repossess. All of a sudden he wins the lotto and has $500,000,000. You can bet that bank will be a lot nicer, hoping he will keep all of his money in their bank accounts.
"Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."
Wonderfully vague statement that should be fun to pick apart.
They neglect to mention that the blood they give is being sucked out of all the other artists that they've screwed over, and that the dreams they are realizing are for their own billion dollar mansions in La Hoya.
Artists know record companies have been screwing people out of their dreams for years.
To make another parallel, imagine that you want to buy a car so that you can go to work and make some money. So you go to your local GM dealer and find out that you have to pay them a bunch of money over a few years for the car. Ok that's not too bad, but wait...
It's not surprising that independent artists end up happily riding horses for most of their career. Sure you might not be able to get on the expressway, but if your ass hurts from too much riding at least you can get off of the horse.
"You have record companies bought and sold on the strength of copyrights created by artists who sign away all rights in perpetuity to a faceless corporation."
Who knew Don Henley was so eloquent?
A real eye-opener... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits."
"...earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties."
"They've alienated consumers and artists."
Re:Financing Bands Through IPOs/stocks (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Financing Bands Through IPOs/stocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cost of manufacturing a CD (Score:3, Interesting)
These guys want license to continue paying like $5 a record to Mafia-linked record promoters who act as a go-between to Clear Channel controlled pop radio that nobody cares about anymore... and THIS is their claim of 'we're losing money!'.
Burn it all, sift the ashes for diamonds. If all music became freely copyable, people would be recycling the same 10 records as other records for maybe 2 years before it got plain boring and people wanted to hear something newly recorded.
The cost of transmitting digitally recorded music around is even less... which is a relatively new development, the too-cheap-to-meter nature of transmitting the actual data files.
MY music (see url) is free- I'm not waiting for the old system to die, I'm already trying to figure out what's next. So far, I've found that a lot of people can DL it, and some of them really like it (typically geeks, so far- or maniacs :) ). There's CDs available for relatively cheap, too, and they're damn good quality, but only three people have ever bought one- including one slashdotter. I don't force anyone to buy 'em- I'm just trying to see what happens when you leave people to their own devices. It doesn't look like people give musicians money, even if they like the music, if they're allowed to just have it as NATURALLY happens in a digitally fluid world. I can't change the world, and am not interested in hassling people, so I've been doing less music lately- though I'm getting back into it for my own reasons. I got an electronic drum trigger kit and have been playing soul drums along to records and having a great time, and I got a cellphone headset, hacked it into a simple in-ear monitor using the guts of a tiny amplifier from Radio Shack, and I'm trying to teach myself to sing well, also to records (like Squeeze, Elvis Costello, Bowie etc)
I guess being a musician isn't what you do, it's what you are. I really have no idea where things are going. I do know that when I end up making even better music, or pop/rock/vocal/saleable music, I'm still gonna be making it free for download even if it means I never sell a CD, because I believe in the importance of digital fluidity.
It's like- in Star Trek, do you see them billing people for use of the replicators? Doesn't it look like replication is free and uses only various basic elements (or transporter-like handwaving treknobabble)? Well, with regard to data and information and MUSIC, the replicator is already here. Now that you can replicate anything musicwise you want, now's the time to ask what you want. Do you WANT anything new? If so, what?