digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at gizmodo.com —

RIAA Wants Artist Royalties Cut to 9%; Apple: Cut Them to 4%

gizmodo.com — If there was ever a time for a band to try going completely independent, this is it. Why give over 90% of your income to greedy sleazebags when you can sell your music online without the middleman? This industry needs to be burned to the ground and built back up again; it's broken and it seems less and less likely that it'll be able to be fixed.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dvicklund, on 02/05/2008, -31/+2Surprising Frucci submitted this :-)
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/05/2008, -0/+26I have been consistently argueing against piracy because though you're taking money away from the RIAA, which I agree is run by a bunch of greedy capitalist pigs, you're also taking money away from the artist. Well if this is true and royalty rates drop to 4% I honestly can't see myself argueing against piracy anymore.

      Just don't be a dick about it. Steal from the RIAA not from the artist. If an artist decides to go independent support them by purchasing their album and going to their concerts. Find any way you can to support artists who go independent. Buy their clothes. Hell send them a donation. Just support them. If an artist is part of the RIAA pirate the ***** out of them. I no longer care if it goes down to even 9% is way too little. ***** the RIAA. They deserve to go down in flames. If there is any aspiring musicians out there I hope you have the brains to hire a web developer over a record dealer.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/05/2008, -1/+11Sorry force of habit to say capitalist because capitalism really isn't the problem. I should have used another term. Capitalism is what is going to help us bring them down. Because in a capitalist world the consumer has the power over the corporation if they get greedy enough we stop buying from them. And that's exactly what we are going to have to do.
      • bdbr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6***** that. I'm not going to pirate RIAA music, because that just makes me the thief they say I am. I say don't buy their music, download their music, don't even listen to their music...from my perspective, the "big 4" don't even exist. I'd rather see them disappear into irrelevance than validate their accusations.

        There's a lot of other great music out there. I'm listening to some right now.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4That's cool too. I think I might wind up doing what your doing anyway since I don't really listen to too many artists under the RIAA. But really I'm just sick of defending these guys against piracy. I've been trying to take the moral stance but it's growing harder and harder the more money they take from the original creators. At this point it's nearly impossible to make a living off music if you sign with the RIAA.
      • thwackitechnica, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7What I use to find out if an album I want is from an RIAA label (pirate it) or an indie label (buy it): http://www.riaaradar.com

        It cross-references the amazon.com info on an album with a list of RIAA-member record companies
        • bdbr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Right on. When I think about how much time that site has saved me...damn, I really should give them a donation.
      • niczar, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5If I were to pirate the Beatles (since you can't download them legally anyway), should I be feeling guilty because none of my money is going to John Lennon? Is it because of me that he's not going to sing again? Or something?
        What if I pirate Britney Spear, will that shut her up? Unfortunately, not.
        • roodammy44, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I always thought that there's no harm in pirating dead artists.
          I mean, what are they losing?
  • dollaz, on 02/05/2008, -31/+164apple wants to eat the minds of babies
    • Chaotyk, on 02/05/2008, -7/+47"Wants to"? Apple DOES eat the minds of babies.
    • heystoopid, on 02/05/2008, -9/+33Apple have always screwed and cheated on every one of their customers in sight dating back to the age of "Lisa" including the original owners of the record label as well !
      • Jimzip, on 02/05/2008, -1/+10That's mighty low of Apple, I'm actually ashamed to support the iTunes Store after hearing that... I would love to know the source of that statement ("Apple wants it lowered to 4%") but it definitely sucks to hear it. On the flipside though, these RIAA nutjobs are hilarious, I don't understand how they haven't died already, do they honestly think anyone still believes them when they say they're out there 'fighting the good fight for the artist'? How do they sleep at night?

        Jimzip :D
        • GregR, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8I read the article but didn't see a link that confirms the statement about Apple. Anyone have confirmation?
        • Radan, on 02/05/2008, -1/+12While I agree with you that the music market is seriously ***** up, this article is a freaking disgrace to serious journalism. It's biased like there's no tomorrow. I suggest that you read the original article at hollywoodreporter.com (Giz links it as their source). Firstly, this only concerns digital downloads as apparently the high costs of serving the music is not working out for the companies.

          Secondly, obviously Giz is only shouting out the name of Apple in order to get as much attention as possible. This is a decision made by all the major digital music companies, and no where in the article does it even say what Apple's opinion is about this matter. For what we know Apple could be fighting to give the artists 100% of the income (though, that is obviously very unlikely).

          Lastly, this matter is still being negotiated about. Everyone is fighting for their share of the cake. If it were up to the writers, they would take 100% of the share, which if you try to look through your inner hate for the record companies and all that they stand for, isn't reasonable. Without doubt they will meet somewhere in the middle where everyone agrees on the terms.

          Note that I hate the RIAA & CO as much as the next guy, but I still think that if you are going to bash them, then at least bash them with some proper arguments.
          • Jimzip, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1This is true to an extent, I don't like the recording labels and my dislike for the RIAA burns with the ferocity of a thousand suns, but despite this I'm also able to step back and take a rational look at the situation - I'd have no problem if what they were asking of the artists was reasonable, unfortunately the reality is it isn't. I see no reason to defend an organisation like the RIAA when all I've ever heard of them is negative press, when a story comes up that tells me they chose not to sue 14 year old Suzy Doe for $49,000, or that they're doing something positive and fair to improve the environment for the artists they 'look out for', then I'll be all for it. Again, the unfortunate reality is, that hasn't happened yet. I'm certainly not going to take 1 point of view without digging for another might I add. The above rant comes from months of reading stories like this one.

            Jimzip :D
          • GregR, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3@Jimzip I don't think Radan was supporting the RIAA in any way, he was just saying that the reporting was sloppy and biased and they should get the facts right before putting misinformation on the web.
        • astrotrain, on 02/05/2008, -4/+2iTunes = Music Renting Service

        • Psygonn, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4"iTunes = Music Renting Service"
          utorrent + donate a couple bucks to the artist for each album you aquire = better deal for everyone (except the RIAA obviously)
        • Manbeast01, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1also except for the recording engineers and producers, I also hate the RIAA, but I think they would get alot more sympathy for their cause if, instead of talking about the artists getting their money, they would also mention the people who work behind the scenes to produce the music.
    • Rahodeb, on 02/05/2008, -9/+33Apple was the brainchild of Hitler and Stalin from a secret meeting in Hell. Just looking at the apple symbol causes cancer.
    • yohnstoppable, on 02/05/2008, -10/+6I'm gonna eat your brains and steal your knowledge
      • yohnstoppable, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1no grindhouse fans i take it :(
    • Muncher, on 02/05/2008, -3/+10Think different. It makes the flavor more interesting.
    • negativefx, on 02/05/2008, -15/+2It's pretty obvious what Apple is trying to do. Have the RIAA cut their royalties to 4% so Apple can offer artists an independent opportunity directly through them for more than 4%. Apple wins, as does the artist.... kinda.
    • Dylson, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Poor babies.
    • SnakeO, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1http://www.indieed.com
  • Chewie67, on 02/05/2008, -59/+17I call *****.

    How does Apple have any say in what rate the labels pay artists. They are a vendor. They get charged the "wholesale rate" by the labels. How those labels spend that money is beyond Apple's control. They can't set the rate that the artist gets paid, only the label can.
    • caylan, on 02/05/2008, -4/+13I think it means they are pushing the RIAA to drop the rates lower, so that vendors can get a bigger slice.
    • ShiningSquirrel, on 02/05/2008, -4/+28Call ***** all you want, but it's accurate. Apple and the other digital distributers are being doucebags and want to screw the artist even more.
      This has been reported before, and by more then one source. If Apple and the others get what they want, they stand to see a huge increase in thier profits.

      http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_displa ...
      • Jimzip, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3That's really sad. I'm writing to Apple as we speak, I suggest others do the same, and try and get them to take a stand on this issue rather than imitating the bad stance of the RIAA. Peace all.

        Jimzip :D
    • droopypooper, on 02/05/2008, -2/+9How does Apple have a say? By being the largest online distributor of music , that's how. They've set the benchmark price for online songs to the displeasure of the RIAA before, even by taking a hit to their own bottom line, all in effort to build their customer base. Now that they're in a strong position, what better way to help their bottom line than by cutting the rates of the music industries punching bag, the artists.
    • Chewie67, on 02/05/2008, -7/+12You guys are missing the point...

      Sure, Apple can ask for lower prices from the labels. But...

      A) That doesn't mean they'll get it. Labels want to RAISE the prices, not lower them, and....

      B) Lowering the "Wholesale Price" doesn't have to mean the Artists get less money. It's the Labels that decide how that money is divided up, not Apple. If Apple pays $0.65 per track instead of $0.70 per track, the Label could take less, the Artists could take less, or both. That's not Apple's decision, it's the Labels.

      Why focus the attention on Apple? I'm sure WalMart pressures the Labels for lower prices. I'm sure Target, Amazon and Best Buy do too. I don't see an article on Digg about "Walmart is forcing musicians to make less money"
    • dezee96, on 02/05/2008, -5/+1@Chewie67 I agree. I'm don't see the correlation here. If Apple wanted to increase the amount of their cut, they would be talking about the 70% / 30% payout, cut. The 8% and 4% would be on the payout side, so I'd expect to see "Apple wants 34% of each song" instead of seeing "Apple wants royalties cut to 4%".
    • jebudas, on 02/05/2008, -5/+10@Chewie67
      I agree too. Apple deals with the labels, not the artists.

      LABEL: Hey Mr Jobs, we want you to raise the prices of the mp3's to 1.25!
      STEVE: Nope.
      LABEL: FIne! Then we'll just take more from the artists!

      Press Release: "Apple hates musicians."

      (strange that most of your replies agree with you, but you still have a negative digg count?)

    • droopypooper, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3For the love of....Did you guys even RTFA? Apple is ACTIVELY lobbying (along with the RIAA and Napster) to cut the royalties being paid to artists. Not only that but they are asking for even LESS to be paid to artists than the RIAA is (4% as apposed to 9%). Can it not be any clearer that Apple is siding with the RIAA and not with the artists here? How can you even rationalize that Apple is unfairly getting bad press here?
    • cassaffousth, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Hello this is iTUNES !!!
  • rmeyers, on 02/05/2008, -16/+136again, the RIAA are just digging themselves into a deeper hole. money-thirsty F*#k bags.
    • cash0utcurse, on 02/05/2008, -8/+115Did you even look at the article? Apple is worse.
      • Lynxpro, on 02/05/2008, -13/+2Apple makes less than 10 cents per transation, which has to cover bandwidth and hosting, not to mention credit card fees. Profit-wise, they'd be lucky to make 1c per transaction. Now, compare that to what the RIAA makes. 20-35 cents. And that's the RIAA, not the actual label, the music publishers, or artists. Explain to me why the RIAA as a trade organization, deserves a bigger cut than the actual record label, Apple, or the artists? I'd also say that the music publishers need to have their royalties cut massively because music publishing is archaic and even more of a dinosaur than the record label executives.
        • glasgowm, on 02/05/2008, -0/+10Do you know what the RIAA is?

          RIAA = THE LABELS
        • Lynxpro, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1To the people who dugg me down like Glasgowm, while many of the record companies are members of the RIAA, the RIAA also takes its own cut from each digital download sale. In fact, the RIAA's cut is even more than the actual record label's cut. That's what I was referring to which the people who buried me apparently do not understand.
      • GregR, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5I read the article, but the statement is unfounded at this point - can you show data to confirm it?
    • Hobbes24, on 02/05/2008, -0/+34pretty soon all of their income will be from suing poor college students
      • krische, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8Actually I think it already is. I thought it actually was more profitable for them to sue people than to sell music.
      • KaJuN4, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Yep, it'll all come from poor college students and dead grannies.
    • LeopardGirl420, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1LONG LIVE THE PIRATE BAY!!! YARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
  • Georgy, on 02/05/2008, -34/+9Bullcrap,why would apple even care,they're not gonna make any more money if the royalties are cut,they're gonna make the same few cents per song..
    • aliengoods, on 02/05/2008, -1/+12Either one of two things will happen. Apple will lower the price of songs, increasing the volume of sales (and thus making more money overall assuming the cents per song remains the same) or they will get a larger portion of the sale per song and volume will remain the same. Don't think for a minute Apple will just let the RIAA have the 9% (assuming it goes from 13% down to 4%) for themselves.
  • hextic, on 02/05/2008, -42/+13I thought the whole idea behind capitalism is that people will buy the best product, clearly, it doesn't work because people buy what the industry tells you the best product is. Case in point: Windows vs. Linux.
    • Hobbes24, on 02/05/2008, -7/+24ugh, very close to digging you until i saw the Linux part at the end.
      • hextic, on 02/05/2008, -13/+5It is merely an example, another example is the fact that people get duped into buying "extended" warranties the companies then won't honor.
        • Rahodeb, on 02/05/2008, -0/+14That's not capitalism, that's fraud.
    • blatantninja, on 02/05/2008, -10/+25Linux? You mean that operating system that completely locked up my P3 laptop last week when i tried to install it? I mean, hell, Windows ran for over 5 years on it with not a single BSD or system crash, how could I have expected Linux to actually install, much less run?

      Linux is nice for somethings, but it has a LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG way to go before it is superior to Windows for the average user.
      • andycr512, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7"Linux? You mean that operating system that completely locked up my P3 laptop last week when i tried to install it? I mean, hell, Windows ran for over 5 years on it with not a single BSD or system crash, how could I have expected Linux to actually install, much less run?"

        No idea why that happened, and I'm sorry to hear that. It hasn't happened to me a single time in 5 years of using it.

        "Linux is nice for somethings, but it has a LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG way to go before it is superior to Windows for the average user."

        Agreed. They expect to continue using the software they use now, and there's no reason for them to switch.
        • blatantninja, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2It's not even the software, it's the lack of driver support for anything older than a year or two (or at best having the support require some convoluted process to install a driver that restores partial usability). In time, since it seems most hardware manufacturers are beginning to support Linux, this will be a non-issue, but for now, it can be a show stopper.

          The lockup occurred because I didn't have that 256MB that Ubuntu apparently requires (I have 224MB). What pissed me off is that nowhere in the page on Ubuntu.com where the download section lies did it mention a minimum memory requirement. Additionally, if this is a show stopper (which according to the Ubuntu forums it is), you'd think before it let you installed, it would do a simply memory check and give you a warning that it might not work!

          I finally installed Xubuntu since it works with less memory. It loaded fine, but then getting my Airlink Wireless G card to work was a chore. The actual process was reasonably easy, it just took me 2 hours of combing webpages to find the answer!

          I also discovered that if you are running the Add/Remove programs (the part where it generates the list of available software), it's a VERY bad idea to try to download a plug-in for Firefox at the same time. Locked up everything for about 4 minutes. Maybe be related to an older processor and small amount of memory, but it just made me laugh at the 'Linux is more stable' comments I always read.
          • andycr512, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1"I also discovered that if you are running the Add/Remove programs (the part where it generates the list of available software), it's a VERY bad idea to try to download a plug-in for Firefox at the same time. Locked up everything for about 4 minutes. Maybe be related to an older processor and small amount of memory, but it just made me laugh at the 'Linux is more stable' comments I always read."

            That's very, very strange. The package manager cannot be used by more than one program at a time, but when another app is using it it should simply display an error saying you cannot run two at once, not freeze. That's never happened to me. One possible scenario is that you were installing the Flash plugin, which appears to freeze for a minute or two while it downloads flash from the Adobe web site (but it still responds, and you can click Details to watch the download progress).
          • blatantninja, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1@andycr512

            It was the flash plug-in, but it didn't respond. It eventually cleared itself up, though I had to re-download the plug-in once the package manager was done.
          • seltaeb4, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Blatant Ninja's comment above is a perfect example of why people use Macs.

            Mac: You want to use it, you turn it on, it works.

            And Windows/Linux users say that *we're* crazy cultists. Remember what crazy cultists we are the next time you're combing web forums hunting down third-party drivers, dealing with undocumented hardware conflicts, etc.

            Thousands upon thousands of hours wasted with PCs trying to get them to minimum functionality -- I'd rather be hanging out with friends, family, pets, vacationing, etc.
  • HiKevinRose, on 02/05/2008, -25/+114Why don't we cut the producer's royalties to 0% so that we can give the artists what they deserve?
    • catalysis, on 02/05/2008, -1/+37Producers are considered artists along with people playing on the album. There is so much confusion here about the process of arranging and recording.
      • hexydes, on 02/05/2008, -1/+15Artists - do something

        Producers - do something

        Studio technicians - do something

        Art designers for album - do something

        Studio - ???
        • ZombieKiss, on 02/05/2008, -1/+11profit?
        • bosssmiley, on 02/05/2008, -0/+10Marketing & publicity - so people know about the work of all the other people in the chain. Expensive business that.
        • kinseyincanada, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Studio - Fund all of the above
        • Kamill85, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Yeah, the studio actually DOES something too, but then it goes to third party, such as Steve'ie and other alike jackasses,who pay only for the bandwitch, while getting 96% of the money we pay. In other words:

          Artists, Producers, Studio Tech., Art designers, Studio = 4%
          Bandwitch (which is cheapass these days) = 0%
          Apples greedy hands = 96%
      • TheChihuahua, on 02/05/2008, -5/+1Studio - Employ all of the above.
      • dilpil1, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Studio - puts down the money
    • wukillabee, on 02/05/2008, -1/+21Dr. Dre deserve his cake, watchu thinkin *****?
    • tehl3x, on 02/05/2008, -1/+11Ok, it's not the producer that is the issue, it's the RIAA/Apple. The article (The ACTUAL article, not the blogspam link) The RIAA wants a bigger cut of the publisher's profit, and the artist is just a byproduct of this.

      "Record companies are suffering a contraction of their business at a time when music publisher revenues and margins have increased markedly," the trade group wrote. "While record companies have been forced to drastically cut costs and employees, music publisher catalogs have increased in value due to steadily rising mechanical royalty rates and alternative revenue streams made possible, but not enjoyed, by record companies."

      While I agree that Artists deserve 10x more profit than what they already make, the producer's aren't the problem here.
    • GreenAlien, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2"The article (The ACTUAL article, not the blogspam link)"

      Awww, poor Gizmodo kids. Be kind to them.

      But for those who want to read the real information here's the link:
      http://tinyurl.com/3bduxz

      And why not digg it too (instead of digging this blogspam)
      http://www.digg.com/music/RIAA_Wants_Songwriter_Ro ...
    • cipher121, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Let's cut the RIAA's royalties to 9%.
    • goldenratiophi, on 02/05/2008, -0/+11WTF? The producer is extremely important. Why not cut the royalties of the people who had almost no involvement in the content of the album?
    • dilpil1, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7Do you understand what the word producer means in music?
    • SweetMercury, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8You think music sucks now? Try cutting producers out of the loop for a year. Every recording will have the sound and feel of a 15-year-old's garage band.

      Production matters.
      • ManOfCube, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Oh did you not get the memo? Crap is the new good. A good amount of Indie rock already does sound like its recorded in a garage with 15 year old recording engineer. And much of this is done in a studio...on purpose.
      • betobeto, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Granted, there are *some* musicians that actually give a hoot about the quality of their recordings and are skilled enough to take the matter in their own hands, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Most just couldn't care less about this fact. I've known orchestra players that just have a boombox at home and seem to be happy with it. That said, ditto on the indie rock comment above.
    • CPoe, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1A song tryin to motivate Artist to realize what their worth. Forget the Genre, just listen to the words.
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-685197498 ...
    • OttawaMarcin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1In any business, almost 50% of revenue goes to marketing and sales. A product, like music, has no value when no one knows about it.
    • thr33m, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Producers are part of the band
  • badqat, on 02/05/2008, -21/+9Check for duplicates much? Didn't think so...same old crap, same day!
  • wukillabee, on 02/05/2008, -23/+14all your royalty are belong to us
  • Professr, on 02/05/2008, -34/+5Apple wants the royalties cut so that artists will leave the RIAA. It's in Apple's best interest to have artists shopping around for the best deals, especially since anyone but the RIAA would probably give Apple a bigger cut of sales.
    • Professr, on 02/05/2008, -17/+2What the hell? Why digg me down? I thought it was a fairly insightful look into why Apple is suggesting this. If there's something offensive in my post, please, take the time to at least leave a reply...
      • Rikkochet, on 02/05/2008, -1/+15How about because Apple isn't full of people with warm fuzzy love for musicians? They exist to turn a profit and by increasing artist shares per song sold that opens the opportunity for them to increase their own revenues.
        Do you honestly believe that that artists bailing on their labels will make them grateful to Apple? That's like getting your wife fired so she has more free time to spend with you. She's not going to see you as her saviour, but as a greedy *****.
      • AsSubtleAsABrik, on 02/05/2008, -0/+11Why leave a reply when that adorable little thumbs down button says everything I want to for me?
      • Professr, on 02/05/2008, -6/+2Okay, I see what you guys are saying. I wasn't trying to say that Apple had happy fuzzy motivations here, I just don't think they'd be stupid enough to alienate the artists. Since when has anyone EVER out-eviled the RIAA? They're known for their crazy take-all-their-money attitude, because they own the artists. Apple has no motivation for strangling the artists - they get the same royalty amount from songs on iTunes no matter what the artists get paid. So, the only logical conclusion is that it's a strategic move by Apple to help the RIAA dig its own grave. That's just what my brain tells me, I have no citations or proof, but hey, this is digg right?
        • roodammy44, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Of course they're stupid enough!
          Since when wasn't apple about greed? I thought it was their company motto.
          Your statements smack of fanboy naiveties.
      • midbc, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1i Dugg your comment but i cut it to 4% so it didn't actually show up
    • rotten777, on 02/05/2008, -0/+17Do you have any proof behind your statement there? Or is that just a fuzzy feeling you get when you read about Apple?
    • Bradl3y, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8I did not digg you down, but I would imagine it being because many people see you as an apple fanboy. You are assuming apple would be doing this for a good cause rather than simply to line their own pockets.
      • Professr, on 02/05/2008, -5/+2I appreciate you taking the time to let me know. I had not thought of that angle, and have posted to correct peoples' incorrect assumptions that I am an Apple fanboy. I use Microsoft products for some of my work, and open-source stuff for most of the rest.
  • TomK88, on 02/05/2008, -2/+36Now's the perfect time for artists to create a new business model. With the innovations brought by the internet, it's no longer necessary to sign to a major record label. Promotion can be done solely online for pennies and distribution has never been easier.
    • xobecide, on 02/05/2008, -5/+1Digital Divide. Do some people not deserve music because they can't afford it?
      • akatsuki, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6And you saw the masses in which concert hall?
      • insllvn, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7I am not sure I follow you. You know someone who can afford a $20 CD but not a 25¢ download? Or do you mean they can't afford $10-$15 dollars a month for a basic DSL connection, but again could can shell out $20 for a CD? Who is it that is better served by overpriced physical media, or do I misunderstand you?
        • xobecide, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide#Digita ...

          Clearly, not everyone has a personal computer. I didn't know I had to make a case for that. I'll just point to the wiki that does show 47% as of last year (July 2007) of having a broadband connection. Those that don't have to either wait a really long time for the download (dial-up) or simply aren't given the rights to use the internet they are provided for that purpose (libraries). Yes I know the divide is closing, but just because they can't afford or more specifically have access to the internet to purchase it doesn't mean they shouldn't have access to the new music period.
          • insllvn, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1OH. I see what you are saying, but these people could always use a friend's computer, or in the unlikely event they don't know ANYONE with a computer they could mail order a CD from the band maybe. Realistically though, how many people who want the latest music neither own a computer, nor know anyone who does?
      • stinkingfish, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1who said that it's there right.
    • mcduckov, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Website please. There must be someone out there trying to make this happen. One website dedicated purely to independent artists that sells their tracks and takes a tiny % and gives the rest to the artist.

      Why is this taking so long? Or is it out there any just never makes the front page?
      • Asystole, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2http://magnatune.com/
        • mcduckov, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Nice website design and the philosophy of the site is clear but amie.st has a way better split for the artist. Does magnatune really need 50% of the sales? Seems excessive to me.
      • fuzzmeister, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1http://amie.st is one. Or, for new artists looking to break onto the scene, and not yet worried too much about income, there's http://jamendo.com
        • mcduckov, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1amie.st wins for 70/30 split in favor of the artist. I was a bit troubled that I could not find more about the philosophy behind the website.
    • sesstreets, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Emusic.com dude. While its not so cheap, they manage to find alot of little bands. Plus its about 80c per song on average (ranging from 60 to 99)
  • Paranoidmarvin, on 02/05/2008, -5/+105I'll be using this excuse from now on:
    "The artist makes so little money anyway, I might as well illegally download it"
    • DoubleTap84, on 02/05/2008, -0/+31fffff... been using that excuse for years.
    • juicebag, on 02/05/2008, -0/+21I agree. Buy a t-shirt or something from their website or go to one of their shows to actually support them.
      • DeucesWild, on 02/05/2008, -0/+9Lol I can just see a shirt now that says "[Insert artist] made more money from this t-shirt than buying 10 CD's"
        • stinkingfish, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3lol more like 20
        • juicebag, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3I'm gonna go send an email to my favorite band asking them to make a shirt like that.
      • Gizza, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2I have never bought a CD, t-shirt or seen a band live that I didn't first hear by illegally downloading their music or by illegally receiving it from a friend, and I imagine I probably never will. I never listen to the radio nor watch tv so if it wasn't for piracy I would probably never even hear any music.

        Most times a friend will mention a band that they reckon sounds ok, which I almost have never heard of, so they either send me some songs or I download their album. If I like them I will maybe buy their CD, or more likely lookout for when they're playing live in my area.

        Piracy is free advertisement.
    • playmusic, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5Not everyone gets screwed by iTunes. My band is independent and we get .637 cents for every download. That's a pretty good chunk considering what other outlets take.
      • jtmeyer, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3stay independent then.
      • bwdd, on 02/05/2008, -3/+5Whooo! Half a cent!
        • SeraphX, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5... *face palm*
        • playmusic, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I put the decimal point in the wrong position. I meant 63.7 cents :)
      • roodammy44, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4You get half a cent... and we pay 99 cents?
        damn. That's a lot of middleman
    • FoxOrian, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5If you're not the show-going type but still want to show support for your favorite struggling bands, downloading their music then sending the band a check for the price of the album wouldn't be a terrible idea either. It might be a small hassle, but hey, +karma.
  • lpmiller, on 02/05/2008, -18/+2I call ***** too. Apple pays the RIAA, not the songwriters or the bands, so any royalty rate cut they would want would be an overall one, not a target one. This doesn't make sense.
    • minoss, on 02/05/2008, -0/+10Apple doesn't only sell RIAA songs.
      • lpmiller, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Which is irrelevent, since they still don't pay directly to songwriters, but to record companies or like representatives.
    • skribble, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1This has to do with money that gets siphoned out of the pile before the Record Companies or the Musicians get anything. The problem is that most of the people commenting on the original article have no idea how this all works and are adding there own incorrect assumptions into the mix.
  • GeorgeClayton, on 02/05/2008, -2/+34It's only going to be a matter of time before some guy in his garage takes over the music industry in a huge way. I'm only surprised it hasn't happened yet.
    • Rahodeb, on 02/05/2008, -6/+1It hasn't?
      http://www.roadtripamerica.com/read/applegarage.jp ...
      • insinuate, on 02/05/2008, -1/+7That ***** is part of the problem, didnt you read?
    • juicebag, on 02/05/2008, -0/+13Already happened. Whoever made the first P2P network.
      • natedouglas, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Seth Green?



        (yeah, I know Napster was by far not the first P2P network)
    • jtmeyer, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5yeah it's already happened. music sharing sites are crawling with artists. soon new artists are going to be on the MTV Music Video awards, announcing into the Mic "I want thank everybody who illegally shared my music online, spreading the sound and showing their love. I couldn't have done it without pira" and then their mic will get cut.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Trying. Looking for a PHP dev. Someone familiar with the CodeIgniter framework, preferably. Know anyone? We have a totally great garage.
  • KnightMareInc, on 02/05/2008, -17/+4if gizmodo says it, it must be true.
  • minoss, on 02/05/2008, -2/+16I hope they do. It will only push artists away from them. Let them dig their grave deeper.
    • gobstar, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0hello minoss....This is why we have set up gobstar.com for the artist to have artistic license and the financial rewards they deserve, with the new wave of digital distribution platforms and rapid user generated growth already undermining the conventional record labels model of physical sales, record labels needs to seriously consider how it interacts with the artist and what they get in return 9% lol why not have it all @ Gobstar.com YOU do get it all….. Calling all artists we need YOU spread the word if you like the idea minoss
  • henchmen, on 02/05/2008, -12/+22Giz readers are pointing out poor research in the article. The rate they are referring to is for songwriting royalties, and the RIAA is the only party calling for the cut. Buried.
    • Chaotyk, on 02/05/2008, -1/+10"In a twist for royalty fights, such new-media players as Yahoo, Apple and Napster and major record labels agree with one another and want the royalty they pay to the publishers and songwriters to be lowered."

      Straight from the original article:
      http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_displa ...
      • writeman, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3So the fact that the songwriter is only getting 13% royalties and they want to cut it down to 9% doesn't bother you? Maybe you'd rather your favorite artist just read the phone book out loud?
        Uploading a song to a website takes minimal effort. The people doing the uploading and storage are the ones who should get 9%. This world is truly ***** up.
  • zyl0x, on 02/05/2008, -10/+130Four ***** percent?? That's insane! In what dimension does the sole creator of a product earn only four percent of their profits?? No wonder music is of such ***** quality now. Real musicians are being swindled out of their living. Try telling Tom Cruise he'll only be making four ***** percent of the profits from his next movie. You think he's crazy now?
    • Bradl3y, on 02/05/2008, -2/+354% of profits from a movie would be a pretty good deal wouldn't it? Think of how many other people need to get paid for a movie.
      • zyl0x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+13Yeah, that was probably a bad example.
    • flammenwurfer, on 02/05/2008, -0/+18Yeah, I think 4% from a blockbuster movie would be a helluva deal. Tom Cruise plays one part in a movie. That's not anywhere near being the sole creator. The person tat wrote the script would be closer, and even then it's really close to being the same thing. A lot more people go into making a movie than writing a song.
    • toolsdrummer, on 02/05/2008, -3/+5Tom Cruise isn't the sole creator of his products. He's one actor of many, one contributor of many, in a single film. He probably makes 4% or higher. War of the Worlds made $588,561,327. If TC got 4% that comes out to $23,542,453.08. I don't know what he really made but that's probably about right.
      • rkzda, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2No, you might try at least double that, chris tucker made over 25 million in rush hour 3, and it only made 140mil in the box office...
      • GreenAlien, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3I think the amount they get paid is predetermined. And Jackie Chan got paid roughly half that for the same movie which is crazy.

        "If TC got 4% that comes out to $23,542,453.08. I don't know what he really made but that's probably about right."

        And about 22m of that probably went to CoS to fund their campaign of litigation.
      • geffo, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1% of profits, not % of revenue this how the movie industry screws artists and the government, they cook the books to make little profit even on hugely successful movies. sneaky bastards.
        isn't TC the producer of some of his own movies as well.
    • 9mmCensor, on 02/05/2008, -1/+11Most (if not all) actor/accesses make less than 4% of the profit of a major hit.
    • staxofmax, on 02/05/2008, -2/+38I'd love to hear some of the fanboy arguments in the defense of Apple.
      • Magnus150, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1but but but TEH IPHONE and TEH AIR!1 Steve Jobs is JESUS!

        I tried, looks pretty authentic, dontcha think?
    • markperia, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2most of the money in movies go to the producers. The actors, screenwriters, other staff gets a measly percentage. But that percentage is enough to feed a small third-world country.
    • bdbr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2This article is about songwriters, not artists. If you want to put it in context of a movie, do you think any screenwriters get 4%?
    • shark72, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1What do you mean by "sole creator"? You know we're talking about the composer or lyricist here, right?

      A piece of paper with lyrics on it, or some bars of music, is NOT the same as a finished song. These people also work on it:

      - the people who perform the song -- the singer and musicians. They get their own royalty, often higher than the mechanical paid to the songwriter.
      - the people who provide the studio time and the producing and engineering expertise.

      Again -- if you have a favorite song, the guy who wrote the music or the lyrics is NOT the only reason you like it. Calling them the "sole creator" is an insult to the band who performed the song, and the guy behind the mixing board who helps it sound good.

      As somebody else said, it's like calling the screenwriter of a movie the "sole creator." Wrong and stupid.
    • Coopdoggie, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, so yes he is crazy.
  • terminal157, on 02/05/2008, -10/+5Couldn't agree with Gizmodo more on this one.
    • GreenAlien, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1What's it got to do with Gizmodo. They just cropped out info from the main article and submitted it as blogspam.
  • ezmac, on 02/05/2008, -6/+18this is why the riaa is the most publicly hated organization...unless you want to include $cientology. oh yeah, and apple can suck a dick on this one
    • gobstar, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0hello ezmac...This is why we have set up gobstar.com for the artist to have artistic license and the financial rewards they deserve, with the new wave of digital distribution platforms and rapid user generated growth already undermining the conventional record labels model of physical sales, record labels needs to seriously consider how it interacts with the artist and what they get in return 9% lol why not have it all @ Gobstar.com YOU do get it all….. Calling all artists we need YOU.. spread the word if you like the idea ezmac.. more power to the artist..
  • codyman, on 02/05/2008, -2/+43Who in their right mind would sign with the RIAA these days?

    These days you could record an album (hell, use garageband, it sounds pretty dang good actually) and distribute it online without ever leaving your garage studio / never having to shake the hands of some greasy haired RIAA suit
    • 9mmCensor, on 02/05/2008, -3/+17People that want to sell a lot of records.
    • yohnstoppable, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4I hope more and more artists distribute their product purely online. Jonathan Coulton has been pretty successful at it
    • skidooer, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Production and distribution is easy. Marketing is not. RIAA members are good at marketing.
      • roodammy44, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Music that needs to be marketed sucks
        • natedouglas, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3I started to say "***** you, roodammy44, I never would have heard of ______, who I now love so ***** much, if it hadn't been for marketing."

          But I couldn't think of any examples. It's all been word of mouth or AllMusicGuide or RateYourMusic or Wikipedia.
    • writeman, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Absolutely right. With today's technology, anybody with talent can record a good song. We live in a society where the MIDDLE MAN gets all the money. How the ***** did that happen?
    • RickMurrow, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Commercial software is not the same as going into a real recording studio. Real microphones and real preamps cost money. Lots. Real drums and good guitar amplifiers cost money. Getting a good session drummer to sit in also costs money. Music software has not changed that much. Many of us have been tracking on PC's as early as 95 ' (search SAW). If anybody could make hits in their garage, the already would have. Some people have been succesful, but they are not anybody.

      This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. A real producer and arranger costs money. Mastering a recording costs money. Writing good songs (forget hits) is much more difficult than playing video games. People get lucky, but those lucky people do not usually have music careers. They get famous and there is no substance behind the hype. American Idol geeks are figuring this out now. Are the people talented? Sure. Are they dedicated musicians? No chance.

      What else are we forgetting? How about music publishing? Any garage band can make CDs and sell them on the net. Should a song actually catch on and it is desired for use by other media (tv, film, covers by other bands), you will be SCREWED. Recording musicians need a publishing deal so that their material can be used properly by others and the get paid. If you do not have publishing set up, the producers will just move onto someone who does have it together.

      Having a good recording done in a pro studio has nothing to do with the RIAA or Record Companies. It just takes money. There are other entities besides record companies that can manage publishing. Incidentally, I think their current marketing capability of the record companies is CRAP. Record companies have never been so week and irrelevant, but they still chug along. While their eventual demise is coming soon, the aspiring musician still has many hurdles to pass in order to create music that is listenable to the masses and avoid record company capitulation.
      • techolous, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I have a few friends who went to a small (run out of someone's house) studio to record an EP. It cost them about $400 iirc.
  • thespottedelf, on 02/05/2008, -9/+14Another reason to pirate music... the artists don't get any of the sales
    • zyl0x, on 02/05/2008, -3/+25No, currently they still get 13%. When you pirate they get 0%. Which is less than 4%.
      • stinkingfish, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2or you could send that money to the artist.
        • cnot3, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Good idea, that should nicely compliment your big "SUE ME" T Shirt.
        • Radan, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Could do it != Will actually do it.
      • jtmeyer, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3i don't pay to listen to the radio.
        but somehow audience money ends up with the artist.

        hmmmmmmm......
    • Bradl3y, on 02/05/2008, -5/+19So because the artist gets a small cut, you feel you have the right to give them no cut? Yeah, that sounds very logical. Quit trying to justify your actions, you are a thief, as am I.
      • Rikkochet, on 02/05/2008, -1/+11Since it always bears repeating, infringement doesn't equate to theft. There is no loss of services when intellectual property is "stolen".
        • catalysis, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2A recording is not intellectual property, the song itself is intellectual property. The recording is art and that is why it is subject to copyright law, not IP law.
        • BlueSkyfish, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8The real theifs are the RIAA who, you know, actually take money from the artists.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 02/05/2008, -3/+2yes they should get no cut, maybe then they will rethink their ***** contracts with greedy record labels.

        note: i dont listen to popular music on RIAA record labels, so im not trying to justify my actions one bit
    • writeman, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3I'd rather send my 99 cents directly to the artist.
  • mal1964, on 02/05/2008, -6/+1Wow everything is great!
  • SSCrow, on 02/05/2008, -2/+111where is the guy that posts "***** THE RIAA"?
  • JedicodeWarrior, on 02/05/2008, -9/+3Again, parasites that kill your children, eat them then suck down the placenta with a champaign chaser.
    • yohnstoppable, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Your comment frightens me far more than this article :(
    • altcountryman, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Champaign is a city in Illinois. I would imagine that champagne would be a far better chase, it's a sparkling wine.
      • JedicodeWarrior, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Tell me ... is anal retentive hypenated or left as two words?
  • Soyea, on 02/05/2008, -3/+2I think they all start selling on line there own product dump the RIAA the greed they have shown "in the name of artist" has been rubbish it's all in there name. maybe we should do this not buy a single product. send a message to the RIAA it's time to split the earnings 90-10 with the RIAA getting the 10% wonder how long they would be trying to take every single person to court.
  • sgxyay, on 02/05/2008, -1/+96I'm an independent artist and I get 65% off of iTunes and 100% off of my sales on my own website. Big record companies can suck my balls. Don't want em.
    • rotten777, on 02/05/2008, -0/+21No self-promoting plug?
      • badqat, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Wow...and I'd actually give them a listen if they had done that...go figger...
        • katiesmith1993, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0figure*
          Read a book; it helps.
      • aloser, on 02/05/2008, -0/+12Where am I and what happened to the Internet??
      • sgxyay, on 02/05/2008, -0/+10Thought that was bad form here.....

        http://www.sgxmusic.com !! Electronic music - breaks/melodies/atmosphere sounds kinda like BT or Hybrid at times.
    • Chiko, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Link?
    • sgxyay, on 02/05/2008, -1/+9If you look for "sgx" you will find my stuff on the 'nets.
    • hexydes, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1This it?

      http://www.sgxmusic.com

      I got that, and the Singapore Exchange, so I had to take a guess...
    • MrSane, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7I'll promote it for him: http://www.sgxmusic.com
      I just bought "Hero of the Grey Area" ($9.99), you should get $6.49 so now you can get yourself 2 cappuccinos from Starbucks :)
      A question: is it easy to set yourself up as an independent on iTunes? How often do you get paid?
      • dezee96, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7Yes it is very easy to set yourself up in iTunes. Use a website called tunecore. You get 70% from them. You can even set your album up to be in other stores as well including emusic I think. Basically, it costs you $10 - $30 as a one time fee...then you get 70%
      • MrSane, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0FYI: "Hero of the Grey Area" was so good I bough the other 3 albums. If you love electronic/synthetic this is great stuff.
        • sgxyay, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I really appreciate it, man. My website www.sgxmusic.com has some more stuff for free and a couple more albums that aren't on iTunes if you want to check it out.
      • sgxyay, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I've heard of Tunecore, but I've been using cdbaby.com. They take care of some of my physical disc sales and for an extra $20, they put you on a lot of download services including iTunes. These are the only two easy ways I know of to get on iTunes.
    • dezee96, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1How did you pull 65% from iTunes? I'm getting 70%.
      • sgxyay, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I went through cdbaby.com. It's roughly that...I haven't checked in a bit. But cdbaby grabs 9% or something also, then iTunes the rest. I use CDbaby to sell some physical discs too.
    • jtmeyer, on 02/05/2008, -0/+9i'll download your album, and if it's good enough that i want to listen to it, i'll buy it. or maybe i'll come see you in concert. and if you're real good, i'll tell all my friends about you. and they'll tell their friends, and then suddenly you'll have fanbase in a city you've never been to, and never directly marketed to.
      • igraham09, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Welcome to the way music SHOULD be marketed.
      • sgxyay, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Cool. Though, understand that a lot of musicians don't do live shows....I don't. Where else am I going to get income if people don't pay for my recordings?
        • jtmeyer, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Well, if you don't do live shows--then i say all the more reason to download your album before paying for it. I'm sure you wouldn't want people to pay for your music if they don't like it, and i doubt you'd say that any 30 second sample does justice to your music. how come you don't do live shows, anyways?
    • SleepingOrange, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3isn't it $30 to upload, then link the itunes account to your paypal account? That's what our singer told us, we're not there yet, suppose I'll find out when we are.
  • Cyberdactyl, on 02/05/2008, -1/+48The RIAA truly is the music industry’s worst enemy in so many ways it's laughable. . .
    Why? Let start with ol' Napster. It WAS the Microsoft of P2P. They owned 98+% of the file sharing community throughout the USA and probably the world. The RIAA could have. . . SHOULD have . . worked with the music industry and Napster.
    Napster could have been the best, single source, marketing tool for the music industry in decades. All that was needed was to require members to share simple information such as demographic, general geographic location, interests, etc. it would have provided a plethora of critical marketing information. The RIAA then should have worked to curtail only the most egregious abusers. . those selling copyrighted music, etc. NOT attacking single mothers.
    Instead the RIAA took a bat to the bee hive, scattering the so-called “file sharing criminals” to the winds.
    Now, instead of a single valuable source of marketing information, they now deal with several P2P apps and billions of files flung to the wind.
    It is becoming stunningly clear the RIAA is killing the music industry FAR quicker than little Susie at Berkley wanting a copy of Christina Aguilera’s Candyman.

    The second major strategic blunder is attempting to shut down, or severely cripple net radio.

    What would this mean in simple terms?
    As we all know, there is a huge net radio market. . .that’s right. . .that listen to music, for the sake of argument. . . ‘free’. Does anyone see a similar scenario being played out?
    Why yes boys and girls. . . an exponential explosion in file sharing piracy. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe that’s the exact opposite of what the music industry wants.

    Now this latest goof-ball idea.

    From where I’m sitting, maybe the RIAA is really a conspiracy to KILL the music industry not to save it.
    Look, the RIAA has evolved to nothing more than the music industries' knuckle-busting shake-down goons. . . pure and simple.
    They obviously are way out of touch with the current music culture. They were given their marching orders a few years back and have little idea how to approach the piracy issue. The RIAA's MO will continue till someone gets a judgment against the RIAA with a crippling punitive award that forces them to re-think their stragegy..
    • Gizza, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1If when Napster was at it's hight the RIAA came in a turned it into an iTunes type service, with either buying songs or a monthly subscription or something like that they would have made a killing. Back when like you say they had 98% of the P2P community and there wasn't really any other popular alternatives, most people would have probably realized the free ride was over and started paying. As it is they killed it which caused more P2P forms to surface. It was like a hydra, kill one and 3 more pop up.

      Now piracy is too big and getting music free is too easy. If they had made napster a legal online service before there were so many other free alternatives it would have been huge.

      Too bad for them.
  • motters, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4It's time for an ethical music industry, where most of the money goes straight to the artists. New bands should ignore the big labels and sell directly online.
  • colincornaby, on 02/05/2008, -14/+5Buried as inaccurate. If you read the actual article, Apple is not mentioned anywhere.
    • phnx0221, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4Buried as inaccurate, it clearly is, second paragraph I believe.
      • Sabrejack, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0If you follow the link to the link to the link (god damn new digital media.. seriously, it goes Gizmondo reporting on Slashdot reporting on Hollywoodreporter) they say:

        According to the Digital Media Assn.'s filings with the board, the digital music companies are seeking half of what the record labels want, telling the CRB that the rate should run in the 4% range for downloads.

        They don't mention Apple specifically, no.
    • Cyberdactyl, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3"Of course, Apple, Napster and other large online retailers make the RIAA look like a charity in comparison, with Apple pushing to cut the royalty rate down to an insulting 4%. Yes, Apple wants artists to get a 4% of wholesale royalty rate. Really looking out for those artists, aren't you Steve?"

      DUH. . .
      • colincornaby, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Yeah, read the ORIGINAL article. You know, the one Engadget is citing. Apple is not mentioned.
  • Systembomber, on 02/05/2008, -1/+28***** the RIAA!
  • diggory, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6I totally agree with the burn and re-build sentiment, and I've thought as much for a long time. It is *unnatural* for artists to work through a middleman, but with piano rolls, radio, vinyl and then CDs (last century's technology) the "middleman model" is the only model we have first-hand experience with.

    Direct marketing to the people, plus live performance, is the future.
  • hextic, on 02/05/2008, -4/+3I thought the whole idea behind capitalism is that people will buy the best product, clearly, it doesn't work because people buy what the industry tells you the best product is. An example is the fact that people get duped into buying "extended" warranties the companies then won't honor.
    • blatantninja, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4This post wasn't that good the first time.
      • hextic, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5I thought the whole idea behind capitalism is that people will buy the best product, clearly, it doesn't work because people buy what the industry tells you the best product is. An example is the fact that people get duped into buying "extended" warranties the companies then won't honor.
        • blatantninja, on 02/05/2008, -0/+13 times and it still isn't any good!
  • Talphin, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3I have been working with some guys to build a business / website for exactly this reason. We give artist a record deal, and 63% of all song sales. They also own their own music, and is 100% DRM free. I won't plug the link here for obvious reasons, but if anyone is interested, you know where to contact me.
    • AsSubtleAsABrik, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Not that I don't agree with the idea, but hopefully you've crunched the numbers enough to factor in paying for the band to record their music, supporting them on tour, creating merch for them, and advertising their name. Maybe there won't be the overhead of rich executives, but you need to give bands more than just a website to distribute music. Myspace and Purevolume can do that.
  • AJanitor, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I kind of hope they actually do this. Only because the more enemies they make the faster they will go down in flames.
    • yohnstoppable, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I disagree, because they'd be ***** over the artists even more so
  • debuffplx, on 02/05/2008, -10/+40***** apple.
  • jskline, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1The fact is this. Previous contractual agreements with artists over recordings are not re-negotiable with the artist. Anything coming forth from this effects only new music. Which; if your like most of us, the new music isn't there any more.

    So; this falls back on legacy music and trying to force a re-signing of a contractual agreement with the artists. Not going to happen. They (we) make too little as it is and the only real tangible income for most of us is live performances. For many; that hasn't happened in a long time and for the RIAA to come and somehow try and tell us that we're going to get paid less is absurd. Without something in writing it won't happen.

    What; is the RIAA going to send Guido and Samson out to break your arm and leg if you don't sign??? Thats so; 1970s TV!!!

    Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to witness the destruction of the recording industry business model from the inside out!!! And its not going down quietly.
    • shark72, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1You know the article is about mechanical royalties, not contractual royalties, right? If the government allows them to lower the mechanicals, then they are retroactive. That's how mechanicals work.
    • Chassit, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Interesting, you imply that you are one of said artists. I'd be interested in hearing more of your opinions concerning the RIAA, piracy, etc.
  • tyrione, on 02/05/2008, -7/+19APPLE? Read the goddamn article from the Hollywood Reporter:
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_displa ...

    Excerpt:
    The labels contend that the music publishers have gotten fat as their business has starved and want the payment method rewritten. According to papers filed by the RIAA at the Copyright Royalty Board, the labels want the board to reduce the rate to 8% of wholesale revenue. The current rate is about 9 cents per song, but it often is lowered in negotiations with the record companies. That money usually is split 50-50 between the publisher and the songwriter.
    According to the Digital Media Assn.'s filings with the board, the digital music companies are seeking half of what the record labels want, telling the CRB that the rate should run in the 4% range for downloads.

    ----
    This percentage refers to the royalty paid to the RIAA, not to the actual song writers. What a piss poorly written article.
    What's next? Will an article explain how the writers are striking because they want to get paid less?
    • staxofmax, on 02/05/2008, -7/+5The percentage refers to the royalty paid to the music publisher and songwriter, not the RIAA you retard. Apple wants half of that royalty paid to them, leaving the artist with 4%. Reading comprehension FTW.
      • Chirp08, on 02/05/2008, -3/+6And yet you magically inserted "Apple" in there when it at no point says it, some great comprehension!
        • staxofmax, on 02/05/2008, -3/+2"Digital music companies" => itunes => Apple. Does this help clear things up?
      • greevar, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Stax is right. It refers to the publisher AND the songwriter. It's a raw deal for both.
        • Lynxpro, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Explain to me why a music publisher deserves such a high percentage? They are archaic. They also sue people who post tabletry online. Why should a sheet music publisher still continue to get higher royalties than the actual artist?
  • WayneCA, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Why do the bands even bother with the record companies anymore? According to the RIAA, CDs aren't selling anymore so you don't need a giant distributor to carry your CDs. Sell your music online directly instead of letting some snake record company steal 90% of your profits.

    Oh wait.. the radio is owned by corporate media so if you don't sell your soul to the RIAA you won't get any airplay.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Because without recording companies they don't get publicity, they don't get a wide distribution, they don't get a video, they don't get their song on the radio, they don't mass produce a record, they don't have access to a state-of-the-art studio and they don't have adequate representation and they don't have large concerts. That's where that 90% comes in.

      If you want to see independent bands, go to youtube. Independent music has been living alongside commercial music forever. The only difference is that indenpendents remain poor and unknown. You can go to any live-music bar and listen to independent artists who will sell you their cassette tape that they recorded in their basement for 10$.

      Marketing and production require a huge investment. Artists work for producers, producers don't work for artists. That's how business works.

      A guy invents something, seeks legal council, gets representation to market to investors and sells his idea for a small fraction of the profit to be made because he doesn't have the power or the money to mass produce and mass market his idea. Inventors who market their own products usually end up bankrupt.
      • WayneCA, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I guess it depends what kind of music you listen to. Unless you're a pop singer with a crappy voice or you need lots of effects in your music, you don't need a fancy $500 an hour studio. And if you write your own music, your producer isn't going to be as important.
        You won't get the same publicity as an independent artist, but then artists don't make much money on CD sales anyways. You can still fill venues with a booking agent and you can still make a decent living as an independent artist. If you're a ***** musician you won't make money unless you have the record label promoting you and fixing your crap music.

        My point was, if CDs aren't making money, it's just as easy to release your own music through iTunes. You don't need a record label to do that.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Tons of people do and they all make peanuts for it because nobody ever heard of them. There must be litteraly hundreds of thousands of independent artist that sell mp3s on the internet, except you'll never hear about them.
    • Mike668, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Who listens to the radio?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1One in three Americans per week.
        One in 5 Americans per day.
  • ibjp, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Time to cut out the fat cats. Every artist needs to have a Paypal donation button on their site. Make it easy for fans to contribute to them directly.
    • insllvn, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Time to cut out the fat cats using PayPal? Classic!
      • ibjp, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Last time I checked Paypal wasn't charing 91% for their service.
  • chris9902, on 02/05/2008, -4/+12I love the way most of the above comments have glossed over the fact Apple gives musicians half of what the RIAA wants to.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2and I have thought there could be no one worse than the RIAA, man Apple you really got me man
    • skribble, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2*READ THAT ARTICLE* This has about nothing to do with the "musician" Their royalties are usually spelled out in great detail in their contracts. This is largely about money that gets split amongst other middle-men. The sole exception is that this does effect automatic -additional- payments to "songwriters" who also likely get money from the musicians already (i.e. they usually get royalties from the musicians who perform there music already).
      The catch here is that songwriters and production co's don't get any $ from performances. and *all* digital music channels (this includes Apple, but also includes everyone else) seem to think that digital downloads = performance. (I'm not sure I fully agree on this... but that's what they are saying)...
      BTW The way royalty contracts work is that artist get paid of the $$$ that flows into the Record Co after everybody takes their cut. So this could actually mean more money for the musicians, not less.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1Apple is the RIAAs bitch. They went Blu-ray just like the rest of them.
      • Lynxpro, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Blu-ray is not the concern of the RIAA; you mean the MPAA. And Apple going Blu-ray has more to do with Steve Jobs [that's Mr. Pixar and Mr. Apple to you] being the largest shareholder of Disney which is a major Blu-ray supporter. It also has to do with c-blocking Microsoft who is the puppet master of HD DVD via the VC-1 [Windows Media 9] video codec, the Java-h8ing iHD/HDi menu system, "managed copy", and other associated intellectual property.
  • Hecubus452, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8The more they cut royalties, the less I'm bothered by pirating.
    If I like a band, I go to their concerts. ***** recording industry middlemen.
  • AsSubtleAsABrik, on 02/05/2008, -0/+23RIAA Exec 1: People are downloading our product for free and we're losing profits!!!!!
    RIAA Exec 2: God damn college students! How can we make up for this?
    RIAA Exec 1: I've got it! Take even MORE money away from the people who create our product to begin with!
  • hayden.evans, on 02/05/2008, -5/+7Artists just want to eat..... what a load of *****, has anyone seen cribs? For *****'s sake!
    • MScrip, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Most of the artists on MTV Cribs are platinum selling artists or hot rap artists. They have sold millions of CDs and had tons of airplay... and, in turn, have huge tours to make tons of cash. Even if they only get 13%, 9% or 4% of record sales, they make their money because they are famous and go in tour.

      Let's do an MTV Cribs of an unknown struggling Myspace artist... and see where they live.
    • Kronos6948, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Those "artists" on Cribs are one percent of one percent of music makers out there. They're pushed to lofty heights by the record labels, also by their sellability and the gullibility of the fanbase. Are you a 19 year old boy that has great looks and can sing? We'll lump you in with 4 other guys who are just like you, but slightly different. We'll give you songs to sing, we'll make the music, you just sing to it, learn to dance, and do live performances where you lip sync while dancing. Then, you'll get a percentage of everything. Hope you know how to invest, because in 5 years, you won't be worth squat unless you're really lucky, and you'll have to wait 20 years for your corporately sponsored reunion tour.
      • orangetiki, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Ha you don't know how right you are. Except even today you don't have to know how to sing. ty to computers.
  • megadan76, on 02/05/2008, -3/+4Apple needs to start picking up large indie bands and labels and working out deals with them.
    • supermonkey8, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1Not even. Apple is simply positioning themselves to occupy the same space as the RIAA. They will screw artists the same way. iTunes deals are always crappy for the artist.
  • RealHyperX, on 02/05/2008, -13/+14Apple makes me sick. They are in bed with RIAA. How can you diggers defend this *****?
    • meshman, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3Didn't you notice? This is Apple fan boy heaven. Apple can do no wrong here.
  • AndreasTh, on 02/05/2008, -12/+15In this case...
    ***** the AAPL
  • dubfunk, on 02/05/2008, -3/+8What a stupid article, where are the sources? ***** RIAA though...
  • peestandingup, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3Both RIAA & MPAA can kiss the hairiest part of my nut sack.

    I say rob those ***** blind & download away. The artists don't give a damn because they aint making ***** anyways. If you download, all you're hurting is these greedy rich scum bags & not the artists, so DO IT.

    And the movie industry needs revamped in a major way. Movie theaters suck & are in decline, so people should have the choice of watching new releases at their home.
    • sgxyay, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2For the big acts on major labels, yes, but don't steal from the smaller more independent artists and labels that have a more direct line between listeners' money and the artists.
      • wrecked5, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0the big labels take huge cuts from the artist bottom line. they almost have to, it seems. big labels have LOTS of connections with major media, producers, etc., and the cost for those connections seems to be steep. indie labels do have a lot of the same connections, but not nearly enough money (not in every case, but a lot) to promote an artist like majors can.

        Indie artist still see ~65 cents per download from iTunes. even if a band started their own label and were good enough to acquire distribution from a decent company, the aritst would still make significantly more than ~8 cents per song.

        it seems like it's a trade off- Maojr Label= more sales, less $ per sale to artist, or Indie Label= Less sales, more $ per sale to artist. this is not true in every case. major label bands flop ALL THE TIME, and those flops cost money too. this does not justify poor payouts for major label artists, but financing all of these "next big thing" artist costs money. Indie labels tend to be more selective of their artists, in my opinion, and may in some cases, waste less money by doing this.

        it seems i went off on a tangent...
    • KaJuN4, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4You're right about the movie theaters sucking. $8 or more to go see one movie! And that includes having to sit through twenty minutes of commercials and previews. Not to mention the broken seats, ridiculously overpriced food, and distractions of people around you. I very much prefer to rent or buy the movie on DVD. I have to wait longer to see it but I can have better and cheaper food, a more comfortable seat, fewer distractions, and I can watch it in my underwear.
      • dubfunk, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4"I very much prefer to rent or buy the movie on DVD." Not if you have Pirate Bay. Arggghhhhhhhh!!
    • bingobongony, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1So, because YOU hate movie theaters than means that they all suck?
      • KaJuN4, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I jump at the chance to spend $40 plus $20 in gas to go to the nearest amusement park. I cringe at the thought of spending $8 to go see a movie in town. I have yet to find a theater anywhere that I would gladly go back to. Based on quite a few comments I've seen around on Digg I know I'm not alone.
  • over900000, on 02/05/2008, -6/+16In before Apple apologists. Oh wait... too late.
    • grmclaren, on 02/05/2008, -1/+9According to exit polls Digg has voted Steve Jobs as the next Messiah.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.