Better that I listen to them and spread the word, get the meme out there, than not even consider buying or not even finding out who they are or what they are all about . . . which would be the case if I had to purchase everything that I listened to.
If the artists thought your contribution was so important don't you think they would make their works available for free online?
These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. Income is underlined, expenses are not.
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
New fancy bass amp: $ 1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
Bus: $ 25,000
Crew [3]: $ 7,500
Food and per diems: $ 7,875
Fuel: $ 3,000
Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
Wardrobe: $ 1,000
Promotion: $ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000
Booking Agent's cut: $ 7,500
Manager's cut: $ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12: $ 3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty [13% of 90% of retail]: 250,000 @ $12: $ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points [3% less $50,000 advance]: $ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
Net royalty: $ -14,000
Now, on the other hand, let's look at the Record company income:
Record wholesale price $6.50 x 250,000 $ 1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Costs of manufacturing, packaging and distribution @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
Label's gross profit: $ 7l0,000
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game:
Record company: $ 710,000
Producer: $ 90,000
Manager: $ 51,000
Studio: $ 52,500
Previous label: $ 50,000
Booking Agent: $ 7,500
Lawyer: $ 12,000
Band member net income each: $ 781.25
The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/20 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month.
Sure, as long as they didn't willingly sign a contract giving their rights to a third party.
In response to this.
Quote:
excerpt from "The Problem with Music"
by Steve Albini
originally appearing in Maximum RocknRoll 133
By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.
These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on.
The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength.
These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.
Liquid r, I'm no fan of the music business or its practices, but anyone who signs anything without having a lawyer they trust look it over deserves what they get....
I am of the opinion that if you ever owned a legal copy of an artist's work, on any media, you are entitled to get it by hook or by crook.
You realize what you're asking for would absolutely floor the prices of that work? Most people would no longer have an incentive to keep anything, they would buy, copy and sell the original forward. Or if that was easier, they'd buy and sell and get the copy somewhere else.
The natural state of affairs is that information is free. You see another man do something, say something, write something, you can copy him by saying or doing the same thing. Copyright and patents are not "rights", they are a deal between the public and the creators whereby the creators get some limited protection (right of exclusive use) and the public gets disclosure of inventions (patents) and increased volume/quality of work due to the incentives offered to creators (patents, copyright).
I think it's currently a bad deal. The public is not getting what it pays for. I think the duration of patents should be between 5 and 10 years.. copyright, maybe 20 years. If a piece of work is not created under those terms, I don't believe it will be created with longer terms, or be worthwhile.
Music is a privilege, not a right (albeit an overpriced one). Not to say I don't pirate as well, its just that I find that to be a poor excuse. I mean if I didn't steal one "I cannot afford private jets at all".
Music is a privilege, not a right (albeit an overpriced one). Not to say I don't pirate as well, its just that I find that to be a poor excuse. I mean if I didn't steal one "I cannot afford private jets at all".
That said I hate the RIAA.
No . . .
its like checking records out of the library . . . which is one thing that I do . . . except that it is also like not taking them from the library while taking them so that they remain there to be listened to again by whomever wants to listen . . . I am copying records . . . . I also listen and then tell friends about the records I like and thus provide advertising
If I could take a private jet while keeping the original in place, and that in doing so I wouldn't be NOT buying a private jet elsewhere then there is absolutely no harm done . . . and no crime.
Though Private Jets are, in themselves somwhat criminal . . .
I would not buy any music but a few here and there . . . . I simply canot afford to . . . and even if I could I wouldn't (unless I had real money). . . that is the way I have always listened to music . . . way back in the day I would get an occasional album (vinyl days) but almost never from a new-records record store (and I mean almost never) . . . . I would listen to friends records and tape them, or I simply would borrow them, or simply go without . . . at the same time Thrift Stores and the occasional used Album . . . . and while doing so I managed to amass quite a tape collection, and quite a few (very poor condition) but great albums . . . . through the years 1981-1999 (before I even began to get involved with CDs) I think I may have purchased a total of three or four new albums . . .
Taping was not illegal, borrowing records from friends was not illegal, what's the difference?!
Sometimes I still like the object - the case and box - and consider that a reason to step out of my refusal to buy new occassionally . . . but very rarely does the object (packagind ect) achieve the quality . . .
So, in sum, better to listen to a band then to have that band go completely unlistened to . . .
its like checking records out of the library . . . which is one thing that I do . . . except that it is also like not taking them from the library while taking them so that they remain there to be listened to again by whomever wants to listen . . . I am copying records . . . . I also listen and then tell friends about the records I like and thus provide advertising
If I could take a private jet while keeping the original in place, and that in doing so I wouldn't be NOT buying a private jet elsewhere then there is absolutely no harm done . . . and no crime.
Though Private Jets are, in themselves somwhat criminal . . .
Your that argument that music is very unlike a physical good and is not the same as stealing a physical good is absolutely correct. However, I feel that your argument infers also that the efforts put forth by the artist and various other parties involved in the creation of the music that you enjoy has no value.
So if its ok to just make a copy of the music would it also be ok for me to just download and print photographs that I like? Or what about if someone was out their creating pdf's of books? How about movies?
Here is a hypothetical situation. If anyone has knowledge of how current copyright and intelectual property laws apply to this situation, please comment because I am very curious.
Lets say that I have a circle of five friends. Each of us purchases 1 CD (all different to eachother) brand new from a record store or from Amazon or something. Each then rips the whole CD to their iTunes library. Then each of us sells the CD we originally bought to the next friend for 1 cent (or some other pitifully small amount). Each friend then rips the newly bought CD. This process repeats until we have all ripped all 5 CD's. Has anything illegal been done here?
What about the issue of used CDs? Can I legally rip music I bought second hand? After all, neither the label nor the artist see any money from reselling CDs.
Here is a hypothetical situation. If anyone has knowledge of how current copyright and intelectual property laws apply to this situation, please comment because I am very curious.
Lets say that I have a circle of five friends. Each of us purchases 1 CD (all different to eachother) brand new from a record store or from Amazon or something. Each then rips the whole CD to their iTunes library. Then each of us sells the CD we originally bought to the next friend for 1 cent (or some other pitifully small amount). Each friend then rips the newly bought CD. This process repeats until we have all ripped all 5 CD's. Has anything illegal been done here?
What about the issue of used CDs? Can I legally rip music I bought second hand? After all, neither the label nor the artist see any money from reselling CDs.
My guess to this situation is that when you sell the CD you have given up the right to have the copy on your computer.
Or what about if someone was out their creating pdf's of books?
You mean like Google?
Every day my department at a major university library makes a couple hundred pdfs of articles and sends them to both our patrons and the patrons of other libraries around the world. And just think of all of the books we share with other libraries around the world! Perhaps we should cripple academic progress?
you don't like copying? The rock band (your band?) you have linked in your profile sounds a lot like a whole lot of other rock bands I've heard. Somehow I doubt they were the originators or that none of the chord progressions and/or rhythms have been used in similar music.
All three examples above are different examples of what could be considered copyright infringement. The last is kind of copying is so common that it's accepted in the music world. However, what you get away with in the music world could at times be called plagiarism in when dealing with written work.
Comments
Originally posted by trick fall
I can't afford a lot of things I'd like to have. Should I just take them?
No, you should make a copy
Originally posted by giant
No, you should make a copy
Better that I listen to them and spread the word, get the meme out there, than not even consider buying or not even finding out who they are or what they are all about . . . which would be the case if I had to purchase everything that I listened to.
If the artists thought your contribution was so important don't you think they would make their works available for free online?
No, you should make a copy
Wow, you are so clever....
excerpt from "The Problem with Music"
by Steve Albini
originally appearing in Maximum RocknRoll 133
These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. Income is underlined, expenses are not.
Advance: $ 250,000
Manager's cut: $ 37,500
Legal fees: $ 10,000
Recording Budget: $ 155,500
Producer's advance: $ 50,000
Studio fee: $ 52,500
Drum, Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000
Recording tape: $ 8,000
Equipment rental: $ 5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000
Lodging while in studio: $ 10,000
Catering: $ 3,000
Mastering: $ 10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000
Album Artwork: $ 5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000
Video budget: $ 31,000
Cameras: $ 8,000
Crew: $ 5,000
Processing and transfers: $ 3,000
Off-line: $ 2,000
On-line editing: $ 3,000
Catering: $ 1,000
Stage and construction: $ 3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000
Director's fee: $ 4,000
Band fund: $ 15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000
New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
New fancy bass amp: $ 1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
Bus: $ 25,000
Crew [3]: $ 7,500
Food and per diems: $ 7,875
Fuel: $ 3,000
Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
Wardrobe: $ 1,000
Promotion: $ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000
Booking Agent's cut: $ 7,500
Manager's cut: $ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12: $ 3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty [13% of 90% of retail]: 250,000 @ $12: $ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points [3% less $50,000 advance]: $ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
Net royalty: $ -14,000
Now, on the other hand, let's look at the Record company income:
Record wholesale price $6.50 x 250,000 $ 1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Costs of manufacturing, packaging and distribution @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
Label's gross profit: $ 7l0,000
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game:
Record company: $ 710,000
Producer: $ 90,000
Manager: $ 51,000
Studio: $ 52,500
Previous label: $ 50,000
Booking Agent: $ 7,500
Lawyer: $ 12,000
Band member net income each: $ 781.25
The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/20 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month.
Originally posted by trick fall
If the artists thought your contribution was so important don't you think they would make their works available for free online?
In general, could they even if they wanted to?
In general, could they even if they wanted to?
Sure, as long as they didn't willingly sign a contract giving their rights to a third party.
originally posted by trick fall
Sure, as long as they didn't willingly sign a contract giving their rights to a third party.
In response to this.
excerpt from "The Problem with Music"
by Steve Albini
originally appearing in Maximum RocknRoll 133
By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.
These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on.
The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength.
These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.
http://www.neilsonhubbard.com/music/index.htm
Originally posted by dmz
I am of the opinion that if you ever owned a legal copy of an artist's work, on any media, you are entitled to get it by hook or by crook.
You realize what you're asking for would absolutely floor the prices of that work? Most people would no longer have an incentive to keep anything, they would buy, copy and sell the original forward. Or if that was easier, they'd buy and sell and get the copy somewhere else.
The natural state of affairs is that information is free. You see another man do something, say something, write something, you can copy him by saying or doing the same thing. Copyright and patents are not "rights", they are a deal between the public and the creators whereby the creators get some limited protection (right of exclusive use) and the public gets disclosure of inventions (patents) and increased volume/quality of work due to the incentives offered to creators (patents, copyright).
I think it's currently a bad deal. The public is not getting what it pays for. I think the duration of patents should be between 5 and 10 years.. copyright, maybe 20 years. If a piece of work is not created under those terms, I don't believe it will be created with longer terms, or be worthwhile.
. . . . I cannot afford CDs AT ALL!!
Music is a privilege, not a right (albeit an overpriced one). Not to say I don't pirate as well, its just that I find that to be a poor excuse. I mean if I didn't steal one "I cannot afford private jets at all".
That said I hate the RIAA.
Originally posted by westonm
Music is a privilege, not a right (albeit an overpriced one). Not to say I don't pirate as well, its just that I find that to be a poor excuse. I mean if I didn't steal one "I cannot afford private jets at all".
That said I hate the RIAA.
No . . .
its like checking records out of the library . . . which is one thing that I do . . . except that it is also like not taking them from the library while taking them so that they remain there to be listened to again by whomever wants to listen . . . I am copying records . . . . I also listen and then tell friends about the records I like and thus provide advertising
If I could take a private jet while keeping the original in place, and that in doing so I wouldn't be NOT buying a private jet elsewhere then there is absolutely no harm done . . . and no crime.
Though Private Jets are, in themselves somwhat criminal . . .
I would not buy any music but a few here and there . . . . I simply canot afford to . . . and even if I could I wouldn't (unless I had real money). . . that is the way I have always listened to music . . . way back in the day I would get an occasional album (vinyl days) but almost never from a new-records record store (and I mean almost never) . . . . I would listen to friends records and tape them, or I simply would borrow them, or simply go without . . . at the same time Thrift Stores and the occasional used Album . . . . and while doing so I managed to amass quite a tape collection, and quite a few (very poor condition) but great albums . . . . through the years 1981-1999 (before I even began to get involved with CDs) I think I may have purchased a total of three or four new albums . . .
Taping was not illegal, borrowing records from friends was not illegal, what's the difference?!
Sometimes I still like the object - the case and box - and consider that a reason to step out of my refusal to buy new occassionally . . . but very rarely does the object (packagind ect) achieve the quality . . .
So, in sum, better to listen to a band then to have that band go completely unlistened to . . .
Originally posted by westonm
Music is a privilege, not a right
Actually, it is a right. The whole idea behind copyright is that the public has a natural right that it *partially* gives up for a limited time.
I mean if I didn't steal one "I cannot afford private jets at all".
See above. Stealing is wrong. Make a copy.
Copyright itself is not bad. What's bad is abuse of copyright by copyright holders.
Originally posted by pfflam
No . . .
its like checking records out of the library . . . which is one thing that I do . . . except that it is also like not taking them from the library while taking them so that they remain there to be listened to again by whomever wants to listen . . . I am copying records . . . . I also listen and then tell friends about the records I like and thus provide advertising
If I could take a private jet while keeping the original in place, and that in doing so I wouldn't be NOT buying a private jet elsewhere then there is absolutely no harm done . . . and no crime.
Though Private Jets are, in themselves somwhat criminal . . .
Your that argument that music is very unlike a physical good and is not the same as stealing a physical good is absolutely correct. However, I feel that your argument infers also that the efforts put forth by the artist and various other parties involved in the creation of the music that you enjoy has no value.
Lets say that I have a circle of five friends. Each of us purchases 1 CD (all different to eachother) brand new from a record store or from Amazon or something. Each then rips the whole CD to their iTunes library. Then each of us sells the CD we originally bought to the next friend for 1 cent (or some other pitifully small amount). Each friend then rips the newly bought CD. This process repeats until we have all ripped all 5 CD's. Has anything illegal been done here?
What about the issue of used CDs? Can I legally rip music I bought second hand? After all, neither the label nor the artist see any money from reselling CDs.
Originally posted by Kishan
Here is a hypothetical situation. If anyone has knowledge of how current copyright and intelectual property laws apply to this situation, please comment because I am very curious.
Lets say that I have a circle of five friends. Each of us purchases 1 CD (all different to eachother) brand new from a record store or from Amazon or something. Each then rips the whole CD to their iTunes library. Then each of us sells the CD we originally bought to the next friend for 1 cent (or some other pitifully small amount). Each friend then rips the newly bought CD. This process repeats until we have all ripped all 5 CD's. Has anything illegal been done here?
What about the issue of used CDs? Can I legally rip music I bought second hand? After all, neither the label nor the artist see any money from reselling CDs.
My guess to this situation is that when you sell the CD you have given up the right to have the copy on your computer.
Originally posted by trick fall
Or what about if someone was out their creating pdf's of books?
You mean like Google?
Every day my department at a major university library makes a couple hundred pdfs of articles and sends them to both our patrons and the patrons of other libraries around the world. And just think of all of the books we share with other libraries around the world! Perhaps we should cripple academic progress?
you don't like copying? The rock band (your band?) you have linked in your profile sounds a lot like a whole lot of other rock bands I've heard. Somehow I doubt they were the originators or that none of the chord progressions and/or rhythms have been used in similar music.
All three examples above are different examples of what could be considered copyright infringement. The last is kind of copying is so common that it's accepted in the music world. However, what you get away with in the music world could at times be called plagiarism in when dealing with written work.