RIAA sues AllofMP3 for $1.65 trillion

bwana said:
Fair enough the RIAA are a bunch of parasites but despite what w1z4rd believes dont you think the artist deserves their cut? You can be pretty sure the Russian's haven't been paying out the royalties they've supposedly been 'collecting'.
Click to expand...

A cut certainly, but R140 a cd is ridiculous.
 
hj2k_x said:
A cut certainly, but R140 a cd is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Of course it is but the artists arent charging that - that price is set by the labels who are just as parasitical as the RIAA though to be fair they do a bit of work on behalf of the artists.
 
bwana said:
Of course it is but the artists arent charging that - that price is set by the labels who are just as parasitical as the RIAA though to be fair they do a bit of work on behalf of the artists.
Click to expand...

Ok. Then we agree something has to be done...Thea artists know just how much cds cost. They need to sort it out with the labels then in that case, I would think...
 
hj2k_x said:
Ok. Then we agree something has to be done...Thea artists know just how much cds cost. They need to sort it out with the labels then in that case, I would think...
Click to expand...
Problem is these new artists snap up the record deals from the labels and that's that - not much they can do while they're under contract. Expecting the labels to do the right thing is a bit like expecting telkom to give away free internet - not likely to happen overnight ;)
 
I think if i remember correctly, the RIAA is paying something less than a dollar per cd sale to the artist in royalties, but still expects the artist to fork out for advertising etc etc etc, which they have recovered from the sales of the cd ANYWAY.

I think the whole music thing is just way too complicated, and music should probably in all honestly be maybe 20% of the price if the record companies could be removed from the equation, and the artists would be considerably wealthier...
 
ToxicBunny said:
I think if i remember correctly, the RIAA is paying something less than a dollar per cd sale to the artist in royalties, but still expects the artist to fork out for advertising etc etc etc, which they have recovered from the sales of the cd ANYWAY.

I think the whole music thing is just way too complicated, and music should probably in all honestly be maybe 20% of the price if the record companies could be removed from the equation, and the artists would be considerably wealthier...
Click to expand...

Hectic! U got any links to back this up?
 
ToxicBunny said:
I think if i remember correctly, the RIAA is paying something less than a dollar per cd sale to the artist in royalties, but still expects the artist to fork out for advertising etc etc etc, which they have recovered from the sales of the cd ANYWAY.

I think the whole music thing is just way too complicated, and music should probably in all honestly be maybe 20% of the price if the record companies could be removed from the equation, and the artists would be considerably wealthier...
Click to expand...
AFAIK the RIAA merely represents the labels (as well as distributors etc) and therefore isnt responsible for paying the artists - that responsibility would, I assume, fall to the label?
 
Why don't they just stop shipping music to Russia. Like they control other exports. Not that that would do anything but it might give them some pleasure.

Cool poster though!
 
bwana : I do stand corrected, you are correct. RIAA does just represent the bunch of money grabbing hounds called the labels.

I do apologise.

But still I think if i remember correctly somewhere, that artists royalties do only add up to like a dollar a cd, or some ridiculously small sum.
 
I might be wrong, but I think the artist only gets royalties after the initial production costs is recovered from the sales. So the record companies get paid first, and only then do the artist start to get his/her percentage.
 
Nod said:
I might be wrong, but I think the artist only gets royalties after the initial production costs is recovered from the sales. So the record companies get paid first, and only then do the artist start to get his/her percentage.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The artist receives royalties every single time, but the royalties are usually extremely low. Most people think the artists make 50% or so, but in actual fact, they are more likely closer to 5%. If an artist does not create the entire song (lyrics and melody/music) then that percentage can be as little as 2%. The label justifies this in terms of marketing, production and packaging of the music and the artist. Some musicians get to start their own labels, or negotiate better deals thanks to their stature. In South Africa, for example, performing artists make their money through live performances. The CD sales might make a nice Christmas bonus, but it does not earn the artist a living. Minus the live performance money (e.g. some popular Afrikaans contemporary singers take around 25k - 70k per live performance), these artists will probably have to find a day job. The labels make the money. That's where it's at. It's extremely difficult to get into the industry as a new label - it costs millions to just belong to all the right associations.

IMHO, the Internet should have changed the way the labels did business, but unfortunately they (the labels) made it impossible thanks to the massive clout the RIAA enjoys in the US.
 
icyrus said:
But what is the difference between that and freely available music from P2P sites? The artists still see no part of the sales and more than likely any purchase from the site is probably funding the Russian mafia. But to each their own.
Click to expand...
I'd assume people are paying for quality and convenience.

Artists will little to nothing from the sanctioned sales anyway.

There's not much difference between RIAA and the mafia.
 
jontyB said:
Not quite. The artist receives royalties every single time, but the royalties are usually extremely low.
Click to expand...
The artists first have to cover all costs, so they receive no money until they have paid all those costs. The labels pocket their cut from the first sale. It is entirely possible for a musician to sell millions of albums and not receive a cent due to 'costs' they have to repay to the label. The music and movie industries employ accountants to make sure as little money as possible falls into the wrong hands, e.g. the musicians.
 
noxibox said:
The artists first have to cover all costs, so they receive no money until they have paid all those costs. The labels pocket their cut from the first sale. It is entirely possible for a musician to sell millions of albums and not receive a cent due to 'costs' they have to repay to the label. The music and movie industries employ accountants to make sure as little money as possible falls into the wrong hands, e.g. the musicians.
Click to expand...
Hi noxibox: you're talking about production loan costs. The first album production costs are recouped by the label if the label foots the production cost. This is negotiated by the artist, and can come off all future earnings. The label, however, does rip the artist off - how better to guarantee an income than to "own" the artist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter