DISQUS

Lee · 1 year ago

Hey Ben,

I just wanted to chime in here since I have some experience, purely from the outside, with this issue, a rather complicated one. See, the gist of it is, unless you are a Madonna or Kanye you're really not making any money off your songs in any direct fashion, 7 cents a song on Itunes, for instance. So, most medium size and smaller artists can make their money two ways.

1. Merchandise sold on their tours.
2. Licensing their songs to TV/Radio/Film etc etc. This is obviously the most lucrative (mailbox money!)

The era of gold and platinum singles and records is all but gone now, as any artist will tell you. The interesting thing is a group like the Rolling Stones will sign a multi-bilion dollar deal with their record label for three new albums. The albums will come out, they won't sell, leaving the record company with a huge bar bill. Plus, to add insult to injury, groups like The Rolling Stones, U2, etc. are so big that in their contract they have total control of all profits from their touring and merchandising, plus they own their catalogue for licensing, and don't have to give one penny of those profits to the record company (100's of millions of dollars.) The Rolling Stones had the biggest tour of, was it last summer? The record company went busto on their record. See what I'm getting at.

In any case, my point is the record companies are pissed. So now, even with smaller artists, they won't sign a deal unless "touring and merch" is included since the albums are looked at as nothing more than advertisements for the tour and a possible tv spot during a love scene on Grey's Anatomy, etc. etc. They want it all. So how do you survive as an artist? It's a good question. Not like you once did, that's for sure.

It's interesting because while I agree wholeheartedly that music is a part of our life, the fact is the investment these big corporations make into their artists is no small thing; it can be millions of dollars to break an artist. Sure, there's a lot of crap out there, but the industry still does break interesting new artists, and has the publicity and distribution machinery to do it. As bad as the corporations can be, without them the music business would be a distribution mess, even more cacaphonious madness then it is already. So what I'm saying is they are within their right to want to collect on their time and investment in every feasible and fair way. That's just basic economics whether you are a multi-national corporation or a mom and pop lemonade stand.

On the other hand, innovation is the breeder of revenue, and when innovation is halted, revenue too halts, or it filters into "black market" sources. Let me give you an example: When online poker first came about the casinos were completely in fear that this would end casino gambling as we know it. People could play in the comfort of their own home and never set foot out of the house. That was the fear, none of the profits would come to them. What's happened? Well, I don't know what the percentage is, but a lot more people go to casinos now to play than ever before. Why? Because they have so much easier access to the game, people who normally wouldn't dare try to play in a casino now can get their seasoning and confidence at home before going to a casino, then they storm the place thinking their going to take it for all its worth...which never happens. People who never would have had the guts are now going and spending their money. So in this case, no matter how the powers that be tried to put the kibosh on the technology, the technology still found a way to help them through its innovation and access.

So obviously you need innovation to create revenue (see the city of Detroit dying because the UAW refused to innovate, thus all hybrid technology being developed overseas by cheaper labor,) See, the problem is when the innovation is so far ahead of the powers that be. It's not that they don't want it, they just want to continue to control the profits of it. For instance, eventually we will be on alternative fuel cells...we could be now. The technology is there, the problem is the infrastructure is not, and it's not going to change for another decade because of this, until the big oil and motor companies that own it all now have everything in place to own the future fuel cells as well...dig? They don't want to destroy the Earth...there's no money to be made off a destroyed Earth, but they want to continue to have power and influence and big, big vacation homes.

So the fear by the record companies, who from my bird's eye view are truly a mess, is warranted because they don't have, nor can they afford any control of the new innovations. This fact is why their approach to the technology is wrongheaded. They can't adapt quickly enough and so they are living off the old paradigm until they can find a way to do so. Stone-walling, if you will, making as much trouble as possible.

Why? Because you have a lot of very uncreative people running companies who went to business schools and learned the old fashioned way and have formulas and understand revenue and ancilliary in the most basic, connect the dots Wharton Businnes School kind of way. They're not set up for technological innovation that can be uploaded from a home computer and passed among friends.

One looks at Prince or Radiohead and countless others, how effectively they run their businesses, and one wonders if people who want to go into business shouldn't all be sent to music and art schools.

Later, brother.

L

Muzica Noua · 1 year ago

Its totally absurd to charge those amounts.
I agree that a Radio station may have some big profits, but that doesnt mean they should give away three quarters away in taxes.
Oh well ... politics ..

P.S. I almost got arrested for downloading Lord of the Rings .. :\

Web Directory · 12 months ago

If they would not charge high ammounts, then what would the artists earn ?
Its an entire network of earnings going arround there .. but I agree politicians have their way with them

Wedding Rings · 10 months ago

Piracy has always been an issue. There have been multiple attempts to deal with but though we have managed to control or reduce the level we have not yet got rid of it completely. The question which comes to my mind is it possible practically to get rid of illegal distribution or dowload. Thanks to P2P apps like eMule who has made this much more tougher.

Defaulted · 9 months ago

Is piracy so bad? I think that smaller artists have a lot to gain in piracy. A lot of people you just would not know some music if it wasnt for piracy. Of course they loose money at first but at the end they are winning because of exposure.

Beats · 9 months ago

The recording industry should learn to work with online network because all they are doing is giving networks a bigger name and pushing them more an more to the internet. The RIAA is is a no win situation. They Bicked the wrong battle to fight.

Todd · 9 months ago

No musicians win because of piracy. A corner store does not win when someone steals coca cola from the store to 'try it out'

Stealing is stealing, and that is exactly what music piracy is. Making excuses for downloading by saying that it 'only helps the small artist' is just a copout to help downloaders feel more justified and ethical with the fact that it is stealing.

Pat_R · 6 months ago

If they start charging the radio, will the radio start charging us the listeners, or will they just stop playing that persons music, ie. the pricier songs. That is stupid, thank god for YouTube. You can make mixtapes on there.

Mello · 2 months ago

Piracy has affected my company, and radio station are a bunch of A holes, artist that trying to break into the industry and they dont give them a chance


http://www.phloentertainment.com