Hi Tony.



The label gets paid either way for the sale so it makes no difference.



No that's painting everyone with the same brush here, I'm talking about the music industry and their behaviour.

I don't know if you are aware of all they do but new artists get very bad deals, and the record labels cream the profits. Even forgetting that..... across the entire world they have been working with governments to roll out laws that make it legal for them to charge a little sweet shop for having a radio on, or charging hotels per room fees for allowing you to listen to your own radio in your room.

I could write a book on the shameless greedy little things the music industry has done to destroy their own business.

Just to give you a figure on artists, a typical Radio station has to pay 35 euro per song they play on the radio. The artist gets 30 cent of that and the label gets the rest.

Ouch... !!!!

James.

James, you're right. In the mid-70's, I was asked to join a group that became big in the country field (decided not to do it, but am still good friends with all of the members, including the guy I recommended for the job they offered me). At first, they got a draw against future record royalties.Several years later, they had 2 top 10 hits, and were still living on the $175.00 a week they were guaranteed. There are STILL active lawsuits between the group and both labels they have been with, publishers and more. They NEVER could get an accurate accounting of what the charges were into their expense/promotion account.

And they tell me that things are no better today than they were almost 35 years ago.


What a shame!

Russ

The fact of the matter is, despite the iTunes store, the vast amount of music being listened to is being stolen. Rapidshare, torrents, Limewire... as soon as an artist gets famous enough that more than just a few local fans have heard about them, up goes their work for anyone to download. I work for a tiny, independent label. Our signed artists are hardly household names! And yet, we found CD's that we had produced, that had made virtually NO chart impact, were up on Rapidshare in their entirety...

Estimates put the loss in revenue to the music industry at over 60% compared to pre-Napster days. I don't know of ANY industry that can survive that. Imagine 6 out of 10 cars at a car dealership lost to theft (but the dealer still has to pay for them)... and not to professional thieves, but to people who would normally be their regular customers. Think anyone could survive that?

I'm sorry, but this crisis was not precipitated by a greedy and uncaring music label. People are JUST as willing to steal from unsigned and un-labeled artists as they are from those in the evil grip of a Warner Bros. or Sony It was precipitated by a greedy and uncaring public, and it shows NO sign of abating now the industry has been reduced to its' knees.

And for every story of label excess, there's a millionaire musician from the old pre-Napster days (most of whom you don't even think deserves their money!) that won't happen today. What do any of you think a label DOES, anyway? Do they do next to nothing, and garner 98% of the profits? You would ALL be running labels if that were so. Here's the sad fact. Most CD's released LOSE MONEY... Now, would you rather it be the label's money, or your own?

Willing to lose your own money (millions of it)? Start a label... and be prepared to be called a leech on the artist. MAYBE you'll be one of the tiny few that have a hit. And then maybe you'll be ecstatic that 60% of your product is being stolen (or more). I mean, you wouldn't WANT to be accused of being profitable, would you? Nor would you want enough money from one hit to be able to subsidize the next 99 flops until you get a hit again. One should be sufficient, shouldn't it..?

Look, ALL industries are 'evil'... they ALL pay the workers a pittance, they ALL reward the executives far above the people who actually MAKE the product. They ALL scratch and claw at a profit, engage in dodgy practices and shady deals.

But none of us are seriously saying the auto industry should dissolve, and we all make our own cars from now on (or buy them from bespoke tuners). None of us seriously think we should grow our own crops, raise our own livestock, weave our own clothes... But, apparently, some of us think that music will get BETTER with no profit motive, while at the same time, moan about the deplorable state modern pop music is in. It's that way FOR A REASON...

They are making 40% of what they used to ten years ago! And sadly, for all the rise in technology, making great sounding music (not just 'OK' sounding music) is just as hard, expensive and complicated as it used to be.

If any of you would be willing to have 60% of what you make stolen, and then pilloried and demonized for trying to stay afloat in this cesspool of greed and theft and at the same time, make some art (or at least a good dance tune!), have at it... It's easy to criticize, MUCH harder to put your OWN money on the line, isn't it?

Stop trying to hold the music industry to a higher standard than any other you are apparently content with... or go out and SHOW US how easy it is to run a label and still give the majority of the money to the artist (who didn't pay a THING to get his product made). I mean, you are ONLY going to have hits, aren't you?

Diki, it was not my intention to say that all labels are corrupt or that those involved are dishonest. And, sure you'll find dishonest people in all walks of life.

I'm just saying that the rip-off of hungry new artists by the big boys is all too common and has been going on for years.

You are right about the majority of the "theft" being people who illegally download.

And, there's no question, you and the people at your label are producing a good product.

I'm beginning to think that a "life of crime" is the way to go!


Russ (just kidding) L:ay

I think the more important question is whether or not the record Labels created this problem them selves.
They created a business model that they them selves admit was a poor one and did not afford them to make a just profit
They had to resort to questionable business practices, denigration of artist, manipulation of lawmakers, not allowing the public to here a real variety of music and on and on.


Maybe now the artist and public can both get what they want and not have to be at the mercy of the record Label.
The same way we who want a 76 key Yamaha arranger are at the mercy of Yamaha.

Both Yamaha and the record label are saying the same thing they are doing the market research and they don�t see the need for what the public really wants.


[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 06-16-2010).]

I think Diki has a point; the record labels weren't responsible for ushering in the 'digital age' which opened the door for EASY illegal downloading. I'm not saying that they're without sin, I'm just saying that the DIRECT reason for the state of the industry IS likely illegal copying of digital media. Let's face it, "what the public wants" (to quote To the Genesis) is cheap gas and free music. BUT, since nothing in life is 'free', somebody has to pay, and in this case it's both the artist and the record labels (who shell out the initial bucks).

"I have seen the enemy, and it is US".



chas

This is the modern reality. Labels suddenly have competition, albeit in an unorthodox and, to them, unfair, manner, where they previously had free rein to do as they liked, and did. So compete. Don't go whining and crying to government to effectively bail you out. Who said free enterprise had to be orthodox and fair anyway? It's not and never was. It's FREE enterprise, is it not?

Yes, it costs big $ to run a label, but it needn't. Small independents manage it, hence the proliferation of them, but the Sony's, the WB's, et al got fat on the backs of artists and have put themselves into the position in which they find themselves today. Well, fat cats, the times they are a-changing. Deal with it.

are you sure 124 ???? The same methods the general public are using to cheat the record labels and ultimately the artists wont change just because there are smaller independent lables out there. It just means there is even less profit around to be shared amongst even smaller companies. A record company has to be a certain critical mass just to generate sales or do you think promting CD's and selling the from the back of the Gig van will seriously sustain anyone ? who will pay up front all the promotion and marketing and developement costs to see the end product being stolen and then given away for free ?

i dont think ignoring the problem of theft is the answer ...do you ?

Spanish Judges Say P2P is the Same as Loaning Books

A Spanish court cleared the website of any guilt for containing links to copyrighted content, saying that there has always been some form of the sale or loan of books, films, music and so on, straight since ancient times. That�s what happens now with P2P services, with the only difference that all content is now digital.

Spain keeps holding the first place among countries that push back at excessive demands of the entertaining industry. Recently a Madrid provincial court ruled that a website is not responsible for copyright violation committed by just containing links to other websites hosting copyrighted content.

A three-judge panel said in their ruling that sale and loan of books, films and music have always existed in some form since the very ancient times. The only difference now is for the most part in the medium people switch to � earlier it was analog media or paper, while now all files are in a digital format allowing a more efficient and fast exchange of a better quality. Moreover, the great advantage of it is availability through the Internet on a global scale.

The court considered evidence that the website doesn�t host the actual copyrighted materials, but only links to places where they can be found, and decided there can�t be any profit earned from the content. The court didn�t consider the presence of advertisements on the webpages containing links to be an offense.

Carlos Sanchez Almeida, the lawyer of the office defending the case, said that the court found 8 final judicial decisions proving the legitimate existence of this website. He also added that the Spanish judges have taken up a position of freedom in the web.

It has been for years that a number of Spanish judges have come to a decision that file exchanging is considered legal as long as there�s no money or other compensation involved beyond the exchanging of content available among many users. In a similar vein, noncommercial peer-to-peer file-sharing is legal. That is perhaps the main reason for the US Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus pointing at Spain on its �Piracy Watch List� (a list of Top Priority Countries), which contains countries they claim to be lacking copyright law enforcement. It even resulted in complaints of Sony Pictures Entertainment that piracy in Spain is so widespread that Hollywood is thinking over discontinuing selling DVDs there.

(source unknown)

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 06-22-2010).]

WOW ... That's a sad viewpoint ... I'm certainly glad I worked for what must be the one company that didn't know that was the way to treat their employees ... In fact they were just voted the best large company to work for in RI - and one of the factors was employee responses to a comprehensive survey ...
Just for my info ... do people here who so often put down 'big business' as the most evil thing on earth have 401k plans???
Just asking ...
t.