I can't believe it's taken this long. Common sense dictates that if there's no production of physical packaging, then the cost all around should come down substantially.
Assuming the physical packaging is a significant portion of the wholesale price. I think it's less than $1 a CD in volume, including case and inserts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux
I have no problem with Eninem (who I could care less about as an 'artist') going after the labels for contractual royalties, but if he wants to get himself kicked off the iTunes store then he should be prepared for the sales consequences. Not that Apple shouldn't uphold the letter of their contract with him, but other than the advertising incident they're only providing the material as a distributor. Choose you battles...
The beef isn't with iTunes but his label.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215
I disagree. It's a purchase, not a lease, since you can burn that track onto a CD, which then becomes unprotected, etc. In other words, you can do whatever you want with that track. Plus, now that the vast majority of iTunes tracks are DRM-free, it's even more clear that a purchase is taking place.
There are limits though, if you buy a retail CD, you're not allowed to make copies of that CD for sale. The same goes for music files. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to give away copies either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
It is a free market and you can start a company that will allow anyone and everyone to put up any "music" they create, but for a free market to actually work it has to be a place where people can find what they want. A confusing cluster of really bad music will not be where people will shop. Having a great voice or being able to play an instrument does not a good musician make. There also needs to be good written music and lyrics and production. As you agreed, most of the music from the labels is garbage. How would that get better if the filter were to go away completely? It would make it even harder to find good music. What you propose would not work because the free market would not want it.
Sorry, the free market wants its crap. The concept that the labels "filter out the crap" is flatly absurd unless you want to say that either the filter is broken or they add their own flavor of crap to the stream after the filter. Opening it up to anyone doesn't change it much, it will just change who controls the crap, and the labels are mostly adding marketing. With garage bands, it's mostly no talent hacks. With label music, it is mostly no talent hacks + marketing.
Apple's Genius system, along with the ratings and such, is supposed to be a way to narrow down what suits a given person's tastes. That all goes along with Chris Anderson's The Long Tail, which seems to explain how economics can be in a market where physical limitations aren't an issue anymore, and allow people to more easily find products that fits their preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte
The music industry - as we know it today - is a middle man. That middle man didn't exist back in Mozart or Bethoovens ages and maybe the digital age has made their business case hard to sustain. The artist is still there and the audience is still there - but how does the performance reach the audience? How does the artist earn money?
As it is, the labels aren't just the middleman, they basically take 95% or more of the wholesale and the artists are lucky to get the remaining 5%.
Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.
There is no reason why the apps store model couldn't apply here too. The free stuff and the paid for stuff are available there so why not 'every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo' in a section all its own on an expanded 'Artists direct store' in iTunes? Many great artists start with a garage band demo remember. Your assumption that record labels act as good filters is a joke. They rejected the Beatles and I was once in Elton John's studio (he was away) when an excellent musician was turned down but then asked if he had anything like 'Radio Killed the Video Star' as it was number one at the time! We the people can judge what we like thank you very much. As to judging the music by the art label ... I am speechless (ROFL actually) but I wonder if you ever heard the saying about 'judging a book by its cover?'
As it is, the labels aren't just the middleman, they basically take 95% or more of the wholesale and the artists are lucky to get the remaining 5%.
Most big time artist don't make their money by selling their music to the consumers. They make it by selling the rights to their music to a music label. That 5% they get is on top of what the music label paid them in advance for the rights to market their music.
I'm sure Emimen could walk into any music label office and get 1 million dollars plus (he probablly could have commanded a lot more at his height) for just signing his next album deal with that label. Before he even produced a note for that album. And if the album turns out to be a bust, Eminem still get to keep his million dollar plus advance.
Eminem my be right about his case against the music label. But don't feel sorry for the guy. He didn't get rich by only getting 5% of the wholesale because he went through a middleman.
It's like how Bill Clinton sold the book rights (to his memoir) to some publisher for $10 million. I'm sure he will also receive some small amount, maybe less than 5%, for each copy sold. The publisher isn't really the middleman. They paid up front for the rights to market and make money off his book. And this may include any movie, TV or screenplay rights.
Now if you want to talk about how small or independent musicians and consumers are getting screwed by big record labels, that's a different matter. In reality, the music label should be returning what savings they get from selling a digital copy back to the consumers. It's the consumer that are actually getting less (quality wise) than what they would have gotten with an actual CD version. But that's asking a lot, when the consumers never realized any of the savings from when they went from pressing vinyl to CD's.
Most big time artist don't make their money by selling their music to the consumers. They make it by selling the rights to their music to a music label. That 5% they get is on top of what the music label paid them in advance for the rights to market their music.
...
Then there are artist actually more or less created by record labels. Then this issue also comes in a more difficult situation. Sting, Bruce Springsteen, U2 and others has their own talent while others may not have made it without the record labels abilities to create a success! \
In the UK, you are allowed to retain a recording *only* long enough to watch it later. You are not legally allowed to record shows in order to create and archive, nor are you allowed to record shows for repeated viewings.
From the UK Intellectual Property Office: "A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to enable it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time. This time-shifting exception does not cover the making of recordings for placing in a collection for repeated viewing or listening; and use of recordings other than to time-shift a programme for yourself or your family is likely to be illegal."
yet since the initial spread of VCRs people have created personal libraries.
The BBC knows this and has requested anyone who has personal recordings of lost BBC television, to please step forward and return these lost recordings to the national archive.
in that event, who does it MORALLY belong to? the nation? the entity that made the programming but then saw fit to destroy it? or the individual who managed to capture the broadcast and retain it for personal use?
on a similar note, shows similar to "I love lucy" has had about 50 years to make a profit, do they go on making profit indefinitely? or are the so much a part of the culture that they have cultural significance?
THESE are the questions the pirate bay folks seem to be asking.
I think.. no feel, that as our unique position in time allows us to store these on off recorded events and archive them, for future generation. we need to ask ourselves WHY?
because we can? because we want to leave evidence of our existence?
If we had stored viewable copies of plays and the spoken language of actors from 200 years ago, how would they benefit us? and how would they benefit those long since dead people?
look what happens when a great body of work IS stored, Shakespeare. but what value HAS the work of Shakespeare actually got? and would it have MORE value if we had access to recordings of those original plays being acted.
the plays themselves have a significant role to play in our collective culture, as do current works, school children apparently benefit from access to Shakespeare's work, so is it fair to ask if 2-300 years from now, school children will benefit from access to the archives of "I love Lucy" and if the answer is YES, why can't we ALL benefit from that free access TODAY?
I have no answer at present, but I do still think its important to have the debate
What is illegal is redistributing content without license or consent, which is what people are doing by making their video and music libraries available online. Granted, it is a passive form of distribution, but it is distribution. Sure, you can make a copy or two for yourself, but you can't distribute or broadcast it without paying a licensing or royalty fee. That's why radio stations pay royalties for the songs they play, and why technically any retail establishment that plays copyrighted music is supposed to pay royalty fees, even though the vast majority never do.
It's funny how if we were taking about shoplifting apples, people would call it stealing, but since we are talking about an intangible, specifically a piece of music, people seem to be fine with taking without paying.
Yet over on the Blu Ray Vs VOD thread, most people seemed to believe that lending a DVD to a friend or neighbour was NOT distribution!
I believe it IS.
my point is that in the UK the BBC transmits over the air, if you have equipment to capture this transmission you can, if you pay the licence fee or not. it seems an arbitrary, but strangely "fair" system, the BBC gets the money and the nation gets "mostly" good quality programming, at best this is ment to inform, educate and entertain, and IMO mostly managed to achieve this, BECAUSE it is not leaning towards a cash pile directed from some corporation that will have certian product/service/political orientated paybacks. Fox news seems to be one "service" in the US that has such a political slant its unbelievable to someone like me, that they are actually allowed to broadcast at all!
Yes artists and technicians need to be paid, but why, for example, do actors and writers collect royalties, while a director or lighting tech does not? if the production was successful, was it not , at least in part, down to how scenes were lit? lighting is a skill, but so is acting. lighting is a craft, but so is acting. yet the split is there.
Nice thought. So would the artists be responsible for writing/recording/producing their own tracks? If that was the case iTunes would be a bit short on material.
.
home recording has flourished over the last 20 plus years. see the rise of Rap/house etc. recorded on comparatively basic equipment.
Also see the great number of large studios that have closed, or have had to diversify hugely in order to survive.
If I had access to just even Garage Band 20 years ago....
There is no reason why the apps store model couldn't apply here too. The free stuff and the paid for stuff are available there so why not 'every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo' in a section all its own on an expanded 'Artists direct store' in iTunes? Many great artists start with a garage band demo remember. Your assumption that record labels act as good filters is a joke. They rejected the Beatles and I was once in Elton John's studio (he was away) when an excellent musician was turned down but then asked if he had anything like 'Radio Killed the Video Star' as it was number one at the time! We the people can judge what we like thank you very much. As to judging the music by the art label ... I am speechless (ROFL actually) but I wonder if you ever heard the saying about 'judging a book by its cover?'
Yes, there could be a 'free' or 'home recorded' or 'demo' section on iTunes. And yes, all musical artists, great or not started with a demo. But I have heard a lot of demos and most of the time it is hard to tell what will become 'good' and what not. Sure, the Beatles were rejected but by the same token, they were picked up by another label and the rest is history, as they say. When coldplay were at demo level I would defy anybody to have picked them as the success story they have become. An A&R guy heard them, believed in them and look where they are now. So it goes both ways. I never claimed the music labels acted as 'GOOD' filters. I said 'filters' which in my opinion helps the sorting out of what is what. I am not saying there aren't other ways but if you put everything on a web site and let users vote for the best tracks we are really back to square one. I wouldn't be exploring any more than I am now, just following what others do. And by the way, We The People do decide. The reason your producer friend wanted something that sounded like Video Killed the Radio Start (not the other way around) was that that was what the people wanted. If the people had wanted Radiohead, he would have been looking for something that sounded like Creep, or whatever. To blame the bad taste of the masses on the Record Lables is giving them far too much credit. I don't think the 'labels' are faultless across the board but the blanket criticism of all labels as evil is really narrow minded and stupid.
I am not against a forum where people can post their musical endeavors, I personally would like to keep it separate from iTunes, however. And yeah, I have heard the expression you refer to and yeah, I do make judgements based on 'covers'. But there is a huge difference between a book cover and music art work. I bet you anything that if you were presented with a number of CDs having never heard of the bands you'd make a pretty good choice based on the covers alone. (not so with books) But I never said I'd judge the 'music' by the cover. The point is that I haven't yet heard the music but I have to make choices because I just don't have the time to listen to everything.
And yeah, I have heard the expression you refer to and yeah, I do make judgements based on 'covers'. But there is a huge difference between a book cover and music art work. I bet you anything that if you were presented with a number of CDs having never heard of the bands you'd make a pretty good choice based on the covers alone. (not so with books) But I never said I'd judge the 'music' by the cover. The point is that I haven't yet heard the music but I have to make choices because I just don't have the time to listen to everything.
Wow, did I really have to explain all of this?
So you are really talking about marketing. You are pre selecting on the music that is best show-cased as you have no time to wade through it all. Fair enough point. In which case the whole 'amateur' section in iTunes would be a great advantage for you. Millions of listeners would ultimately rank the music and then you could listen to the top few. Now you have a narrowed down selection based on others actually listening to the music, surely that's a better than going by the art work. Sort of an American Idol section in iTunes ... OMG ... there;'s an idea
Meanwhile I agree that Apple needs to add a section that bypasses recording labels for those who wish to use it. There is no reason why the recording labels should pull their catalog from iTunes in reprisal if Apple does not actively try to solicit artists away from them.
p.s. I admit I've grabbed a book in an airport based on the cover!
I can't believe it's taken this long. Common sense dictates that if there's no production of physical packaging, then the cost all around should come down substantially.
So? If the artist has a contract that says he gets $0.10 for every copy sold or licensed, then it's none of his business how much the label makes. If he wants a share of profits, he should sign a contract for share of profits. Of course, then he'll whine that the profits aren't high enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinheadj
jenkman91 and UTisNUM1,
I think you're misunderstanding the article, he's not suing Apple for anything, he's suing his own label for taking the same (majority) cut of the profits on digital sales as on traditional sales. This would be an important, and I think positive, precedent for all artists. Why should labels take the same enormous percentage of sales when the expenses and effort involved on their behalf is reduced so sharply with digital downloads?
Because there is a contract involved. If the record companies are violating the contract, they should be (and probably will be) punished. If they are simply doing what the contract says, then the artist has no right to go back later and whine that he's not making enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melevittfl
At issue in this case is the conflict between what the record label tells the artist they're getting and what the customer actually gets.
Artists get more money when their music is licensed vs. when a copy is sold, according to their contract.
What's happening is that UMG is telling Eminem that his music is being *sold* on iTunes. Thus, he gets a lower royalty rate.
However, if you look at the actual details of what happens when you pay money for a track on iTunes, you'll see that you are not purchasing a copy, you are receiving a license to play the track on a limited number of devices, etc.
Technically, the same thing applies when you buy a CD in the store. You are buying the CD, but you are only receiving a copyright license to the music on the CD. There's no real difference other than the fact that the CD license comes with some added hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
This is a bit off topic but this Pirate Bay argument is flawed.
What they don't take into account (and deliberately fail to mention), is that while this effect of pirated music promoting sales is relevant to the way the market is *today* (with pirating being illegal and therefore marginalised), it's not necessarily true once pirating is legalised as Pirate Bay wishes it to be. There is no evidence one way or the other really, but common sense argues against it.
Right now it's difficult to rip off things or find places to download them from, the quality is dodgy and the fact that one can cheaply and legally buy something from iTunes means that the majority of folks will just buy it there. Thus the pirates remain a dedicated, but marginalised minority. Now, it *might* be that making it legal to rip off anything you want whenever you want without hiding in the shadows like Pirate Bay or LimeWire users, will not change things appreciably, but it's far from certain and a bit counter intuitive.
It's also possible that making it legal to do stuff like Pirate Bay will drive a commercialisation of the stolen material. If you knew couldn't get arrested for it, wouldn't a *lot* of people set up Pirate Bay like sites all over the world overnight? Wouldn't they also be rather heavily publicised instead of a well kept secret? Wouldn't users flock to them instead of being scared to get caught as they are now? It seems to me they might.
Pirate Bay's arguments are mostly just defensive justifications for stuff that they simply "want to do." They are the arguments of a privileged teenager, not a noble libertarian thrust. If no one had arrested them or if it wasn't illegal, they would not even be making them. I mean the main Pirate Bay guy is hardly a genius or anything and has been very consistent in stating his case along the lines of "I do this because I want to, and I should be allowed to do what I want."
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
You make good points, but I haven't actually seen convincing evidence that it's good for the record labels even in TODAY's environment. The more popular music is most commonly pirated and after music is pirated, it is popular. Pretty circular argument. I don't think there's any real evidence to support their claims. Even so, as you point out, it's irrelevant because what they're proposing would end the industry as we know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
I think that's where we're headed. I for one think this case is great and exactly what we need right now. Artists are typically under contract and a good portion of that contract covers recoupables for the studio. Digital downloads should not let the studios profits from the virtualizing of warehouses and packaging at the expense of the artist. The raison d'etre of the studio is to promote the artists and distribute the music.
Yes I see the future shaking out like this.
New artists are under the wings of the distributors. They get the smallest cut.
Established artists have more "brand" recognition and will be able to negotiate far better rates for digital distribution or even go it alone (though with the radio still a significant force self distributorship would be difficult with regard to getting broadcast attention).
We're coming to a point where established artists need the studios less and if I'm a Prince or Eminem or Radiohead I'm looking at the potential of 70 cent profit or more per track and it's a lot more appealing than going the studio route.
Keep in mind studios also swipe up copyright and can make a mint off of licensing hit songs for commercial and movie usage.
I hope the studios lose. Their stranghold is waning and for good reason.
Sorry, but that's an extremely short-sighted view.
Our entire economy is built on the validity of contracts. If the artists can come in and say "we don't like the contract any more, so we're going to sue to change it", contracts become very nebulous.
If the record companies are violating the contract, they should be punished. If, OTOH, the artists simply signed contracts and changed their minds later, that's just too bad. I certainly don't get to welch on my contracts simply because I changed my mind.
Now, the artists are free to take these market changes into account in signing future contracts - and they should. But retroactive changes simply because one side is unhappy is a 'cure' that's worse than the disease.
And yeah, I have heard the expression you refer to and yeah, I do make judgements based on 'covers'. But there is a huge difference between a book cover and music art work. I bet you anything that if you were presented with a number of CDs having never heard of the bands you'd make a pretty good choice based on the covers alone. (not so with books) But I never said I'd judge the 'music' by the cover.
Whether you said that string of words doesn't matter that much because it sure seemed like you meant it like that. I wonder if it really helps you narrow it down or if you think it does. The mind can play tricks.
Quote:
The point is that I haven't yet heard the music but I have to make choices because I just don't have the time to listen to everything.
But that's the point of recommendation engines, it helps narrow down what you might like to items that most favorably suit your tastes. I really don't know if the cover is any good at narrowing it down except to eliminate genres if something is miscategorized.
Quote:
Wow, did I really have to explain all of this?
You don't have to, but it helps clarify what you meant when you made your earlier statements. That's part of standard conversation. Sometimes someone mistates things, sometimes other people misreads or misunderstands those statements.
Millions of listeners would ultimately rank the music and then you could listen to the top few. Now you have a narrowed down selection based on others actually listening to the music, surely that's a better than going by the art work.
Sure, but I think you are being optimistic. I don't think 'millions' of people will bother to listen to amateur demos. You could argue that MOMA or the Tate Modern should have an annex where anybody could exhibit and sell their art but I doubt many people would bother to look. I think you are getting carried away with the 'concept' and not really considering the likely 'reality'. But who knows? I have been wrong before.
Quote:
p.s. I admit I've grabbed a book in an airport based on the cover!
My example was really hypothetical, but still, there you go. What about bottles of wine?
Now, the artists are free to take these market changes into account in signing future contracts - and they should. But retroactive changes simply because one side is unhappy is a 'cure' that's worse than the disease.
How so? Why would that be worse?
Contracts are always being re-negotiated. In this case the argument would be that the circumstances on which the original contract is based have changed so lets re-negotiate. Depending on the length of the contract that may be quite a reasonable position.
Whether you said that string of words doesn't matter that much because it sure seemed like you meant it like that. I wonder if it really helps you narrow it down or if you think it does. The mind can play tricks.
Granted, and in a sense I did make a musical judgement (its a hypothetical situation I hasten to add). We all make judgements all the time. It doesn't matter how its done. Give me a thousand tracks to choose from I may just chuck out the first 900 just because I just don't have the time to listen to that many tracks. Its called 'dealing with information overload'. If I remember right this was about the role music labels play in making certain judgements for me. On the whole that aspect of their existence has served me well.
Quote:
But that's the point of recommendation engines, it helps narrow down what you might like to items that most favorably suit your tastes. I really don't know if the cover is any good at narrowing it down except to eliminate genres if something is miscategorized.
Recommendation engines are good within sub genres. If I was to listen to what the majority of people listened to generally speaking I'd have to be sectioned. It would drive me nuts.
Quote:
You don't have to, but it helps clarify what you meant when you made your earlier statements. That's part of standard conversation. Sometimes someone mistates things, sometimes other people misreads or misunderstands those statements.
Well, OK. I'm sorry. I could have refrained from that last comment but I had just written a long reply and then my session timed out so I had to do it again. Goddammit!
By the way - the way I hear 'new' music is by listening to Last.Fm. A more sophisticated method than plain old user recommendation.
My first wife always said look for the plain labels, the fancy ones are usually crap wine
I thought it was the other way around But with all the 'designer' labels it has become very hard to judge. Maybe there should be a section in the shop where home brewers could sell or trade or give away their wines and beers. I would definitely try that though I am not sure I would return...
Sure, but I think you are being optimistic. I don't think 'millions' of people will bother to listen to amateur demos. You could argue that MOMA or the Tate Modern should have an annex where anybody could exhibit and sell their art but I doubt many people would bother to look. I think you are getting carried away with the 'concept' and not really considering the likely 'reality'. But who knows? I have been wrong before.
Apples and Oranges. The Tate example is real world that takes time and effort to see. Digital media such as on iTunes and YouTube is part of a totally new world where millions of people world wide can experience, share and collaborate. I am not being optimistic at all really, I truly believe over time such an amateur entry collection in iTunes would be (and I did say ultimately) get continually ranked. Anything really good would get virally marketed and new stars would be discovered. I bet recording companies would keep an eye on the top rankings too.
I thought it was the other way around But with all the 'designer' labels it has become very hard to judge. Maybe there should be a section in the shop where home brewers could sell or trade or give away their wines and beers. I would definitely try that though I am not sure I would return...
Comments
I can't believe it's taken this long. Common sense dictates that if there's no production of physical packaging, then the cost all around should come down substantially.
Assuming the physical packaging is a significant portion of the wholesale price. I think it's less than $1 a CD in volume, including case and inserts.
I have no problem with Eninem (who I could care less about as an 'artist') going after the labels for contractual royalties, but if he wants to get himself kicked off the iTunes store then he should be prepared for the sales consequences. Not that Apple shouldn't uphold the letter of their contract with him, but other than the advertising incident they're only providing the material as a distributor. Choose you battles...
The beef isn't with iTunes but his label.
I disagree. It's a purchase, not a lease, since you can burn that track onto a CD, which then becomes unprotected, etc. In other words, you can do whatever you want with that track. Plus, now that the vast majority of iTunes tracks are DRM-free, it's even more clear that a purchase is taking place.
There are limits though, if you buy a retail CD, you're not allowed to make copies of that CD for sale. The same goes for music files. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to give away copies either.
It is a free market and you can start a company that will allow anyone and everyone to put up any "music" they create, but for a free market to actually work it has to be a place where people can find what they want. A confusing cluster of really bad music will not be where people will shop. Having a great voice or being able to play an instrument does not a good musician make. There also needs to be good written music and lyrics and production. As you agreed, most of the music from the labels is garbage. How would that get better if the filter were to go away completely? It would make it even harder to find good music. What you propose would not work because the free market would not want it.
Sorry, the free market wants its crap. The concept that the labels "filter out the crap" is flatly absurd unless you want to say that either the filter is broken or they add their own flavor of crap to the stream after the filter. Opening it up to anyone doesn't change it much, it will just change who controls the crap, and the labels are mostly adding marketing. With garage bands, it's mostly no talent hacks. With label music, it is mostly no talent hacks + marketing.
Apple's Genius system, along with the ratings and such, is supposed to be a way to narrow down what suits a given person's tastes. That all goes along with Chris Anderson's The Long Tail, which seems to explain how economics can be in a market where physical limitations aren't an issue anymore, and allow people to more easily find products that fits their preferences.
The music industry - as we know it today - is a middle man. That middle man didn't exist back in Mozart or Bethoovens ages and maybe the digital age has made their business case hard to sustain. The artist is still there and the audience is still there - but how does the performance reach the audience? How does the artist earn money?
As it is, the labels aren't just the middleman, they basically take 95% or more of the wholesale and the artists are lucky to get the remaining 5%.
Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.
There is no reason why the apps store model couldn't apply here too. The free stuff and the paid for stuff are available there so why not 'every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo' in a section all its own on an expanded 'Artists direct store' in iTunes? Many great artists start with a garage band demo remember. Your assumption that record labels act as good filters is a joke. They rejected the Beatles and I was once in Elton John's studio (he was away) when an excellent musician was turned down but then asked if he had anything like 'Radio Killed the Video Star' as it was number one at the time! We the people can judge what we like thank you very much. As to judging the music by the art label ... I am speechless (ROFL actually) but I wonder if you ever heard the saying about 'judging a book by its cover?'
As it is, the labels aren't just the middleman, they basically take 95% or more of the wholesale and the artists are lucky to get the remaining 5%.
Most big time artist don't make their money by selling their music to the consumers. They make it by selling the rights to their music to a music label. That 5% they get is on top of what the music label paid them in advance for the rights to market their music.
I'm sure Emimen could walk into any music label office and get 1 million dollars plus (he probablly could have commanded a lot more at his height) for just signing his next album deal with that label. Before he even produced a note for that album. And if the album turns out to be a bust, Eminem still get to keep his million dollar plus advance.
Eminem my be right about his case against the music label. But don't feel sorry for the guy. He didn't get rich by only getting 5% of the wholesale because he went through a middleman.
It's like how Bill Clinton sold the book rights (to his memoir) to some publisher for $10 million. I'm sure he will also receive some small amount, maybe less than 5%, for each copy sold. The publisher isn't really the middleman. They paid up front for the rights to market and make money off his book. And this may include any movie, TV or screenplay rights.
Now if you want to talk about how small or independent musicians and consumers are getting screwed by big record labels, that's a different matter. In reality, the music label should be returning what savings they get from selling a digital copy back to the consumers. It's the consumer that are actually getting less (quality wise) than what they would have gotten with an actual CD version. But that's asking a lot, when the consumers never realized any of the savings from when they went from pressing vinyl to CD's.
Most big time artist don't make their money by selling their music to the consumers. They make it by selling the rights to their music to a music label. That 5% they get is on top of what the music label paid them in advance for the rights to market their music.
...
Then there are artist actually more or less created by record labels. Then this issue also comes in a more difficult situation. Sting, Bruce Springsteen, U2 and others has their own talent while others may not have made it without the record labels abilities to create a success!
Oh come on, ALL laws are arbitrary!
yes murder is SO arbitrary, I forgot about that
In the UK, you are allowed to retain a recording *only* long enough to watch it later. You are not legally allowed to record shows in order to create and archive, nor are you allowed to record shows for repeated viewings.
From the UK Intellectual Property Office: "A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to enable it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time. This time-shifting exception does not cover the making of recordings for placing in a collection for repeated viewing or listening; and use of recordings other than to time-shift a programme for yourself or your family is likely to be illegal."
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-o...excep-priv.htm
yet since the initial spread of VCRs people have created personal libraries.
The BBC knows this and has requested anyone who has personal recordings of lost BBC television, to please step forward and return these lost recordings to the national archive.
in that event, who does it MORALLY belong to? the nation? the entity that made the programming but then saw fit to destroy it? or the individual who managed to capture the broadcast and retain it for personal use?
on a similar note, shows similar to "I love lucy" has had about 50 years to make a profit, do they go on making profit indefinitely? or are the so much a part of the culture that they have cultural significance?
THESE are the questions the pirate bay folks seem to be asking.
I think.. no feel, that as our unique position in time allows us to store these on off recorded events and archive them, for future generation. we need to ask ourselves WHY?
because we can? because we want to leave evidence of our existence?
If we had stored viewable copies of plays and the spoken language of actors from 200 years ago, how would they benefit us? and how would they benefit those long since dead people?
look what happens when a great body of work IS stored, Shakespeare. but what value HAS the work of Shakespeare actually got? and would it have MORE value if we had access to recordings of those original plays being acted.
the plays themselves have a significant role to play in our collective culture, as do current works, school children apparently benefit from access to Shakespeare's work, so is it fair to ask if 2-300 years from now, school children will benefit from access to the archives of "I love Lucy" and if the answer is YES, why can't we ALL benefit from that free access TODAY?
I have no answer at present, but I do still think its important to have the debate
What is illegal is redistributing content without license or consent, which is what people are doing by making their video and music libraries available online. Granted, it is a passive form of distribution, but it is distribution. Sure, you can make a copy or two for yourself, but you can't distribute or broadcast it without paying a licensing or royalty fee. That's why radio stations pay royalties for the songs they play, and why technically any retail establishment that plays copyrighted music is supposed to pay royalty fees, even though the vast majority never do.
It's funny how if we were taking about shoplifting apples, people would call it stealing, but since we are talking about an intangible, specifically a piece of music, people seem to be fine with taking without paying.
Yet over on the Blu Ray Vs VOD thread, most people seemed to believe that lending a DVD to a friend or neighbour was NOT distribution!
I believe it IS.
my point is that in the UK the BBC transmits over the air, if you have equipment to capture this transmission you can, if you pay the licence fee or not. it seems an arbitrary, but strangely "fair" system, the BBC gets the money and the nation gets "mostly" good quality programming, at best this is ment to inform, educate and entertain, and IMO mostly managed to achieve this, BECAUSE it is not leaning towards a cash pile directed from some corporation that will have certian product/service/political orientated paybacks. Fox news seems to be one "service" in the US that has such a political slant its unbelievable to someone like me, that they are actually allowed to broadcast at all!
Yes artists and technicians need to be paid, but why, for example, do actors and writers collect royalties, while a director or lighting tech does not? if the production was successful, was it not , at least in part, down to how scenes were lit? lighting is a skill, but so is acting. lighting is a craft, but so is acting. yet the split is there.
the writers strike IMO didn't go far enough.
Nice thought. So would the artists be responsible for writing/recording/producing their own tracks? If that was the case iTunes would be a bit short on material.
.
home recording has flourished over the last 20 plus years. see the rise of Rap/house etc. recorded on comparatively basic equipment.
Also see the great number of large studios that have closed, or have had to diversify hugely in order to survive.
If I had access to just even Garage Band 20 years ago....
There is no reason why the apps store model couldn't apply here too. The free stuff and the paid for stuff are available there so why not 'every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo' in a section all its own on an expanded 'Artists direct store' in iTunes? Many great artists start with a garage band demo remember. Your assumption that record labels act as good filters is a joke. They rejected the Beatles and I was once in Elton John's studio (he was away) when an excellent musician was turned down but then asked if he had anything like 'Radio Killed the Video Star' as it was number one at the time! We the people can judge what we like thank you very much. As to judging the music by the art label ... I am speechless (ROFL actually) but I wonder if you ever heard the saying about 'judging a book by its cover?'
Yes, there could be a 'free' or 'home recorded' or 'demo' section on iTunes. And yes, all musical artists, great or not started with a demo. But I have heard a lot of demos and most of the time it is hard to tell what will become 'good' and what not. Sure, the Beatles were rejected but by the same token, they were picked up by another label and the rest is history, as they say. When coldplay were at demo level I would defy anybody to have picked them as the success story they have become. An A&R guy heard them, believed in them and look where they are now. So it goes both ways. I never claimed the music labels acted as 'GOOD' filters. I said 'filters' which in my opinion helps the sorting out of what is what. I am not saying there aren't other ways but if you put everything on a web site and let users vote for the best tracks we are really back to square one. I wouldn't be exploring any more than I am now, just following what others do. And by the way, We The People do decide. The reason your producer friend wanted something that sounded like Video Killed the Radio Start (not the other way around) was that that was what the people wanted. If the people had wanted Radiohead, he would have been looking for something that sounded like Creep, or whatever. To blame the bad taste of the masses on the Record Lables is giving them far too much credit. I don't think the 'labels' are faultless across the board but the blanket criticism of all labels as evil is really narrow minded and stupid.
I am not against a forum where people can post their musical endeavors, I personally would like to keep it separate from iTunes, however. And yeah, I have heard the expression you refer to and yeah, I do make judgements based on 'covers'. But there is a huge difference between a book cover and music art work. I bet you anything that if you were presented with a number of CDs having never heard of the bands you'd make a pretty good choice based on the covers alone. (not so with books) But I never said I'd judge the 'music' by the cover. The point is that I haven't yet heard the music but I have to make choices because I just don't have the time to listen to everything.
Wow, did I really have to explain all of this?
And yeah, I have heard the expression you refer to and yeah, I do make judgements based on 'covers'. But there is a huge difference between a book cover and music art work. I bet you anything that if you were presented with a number of CDs having never heard of the bands you'd make a pretty good choice based on the covers alone. (not so with books) But I never said I'd judge the 'music' by the cover. The point is that I haven't yet heard the music but I have to make choices because I just don't have the time to listen to everything.
Wow, did I really have to explain all of this?
So you are really talking about marketing. You are pre selecting on the music that is best show-cased as you have no time to wade through it all. Fair enough point. In which case the whole 'amateur' section in iTunes would be a great advantage for you. Millions of listeners would ultimately rank the music and then you could listen to the top few. Now you have a narrowed down selection based on others actually listening to the music, surely that's a better than going by the art work. Sort of an American Idol section in iTunes ... OMG ... there;'s an idea
Meanwhile I agree that Apple needs to add a section that bypasses recording labels for those who wish to use it. There is no reason why the recording labels should pull their catalog from iTunes in reprisal if Apple does not actively try to solicit artists away from them.
p.s. I admit I've grabbed a book in an airport based on the cover!
I can't believe it's taken this long. Common sense dictates that if there's no production of physical packaging, then the cost all around should come down substantially.
So? If the artist has a contract that says he gets $0.10 for every copy sold or licensed, then it's none of his business how much the label makes. If he wants a share of profits, he should sign a contract for share of profits. Of course, then he'll whine that the profits aren't high enough.
jenkman91 and UTisNUM1,
I think you're misunderstanding the article, he's not suing Apple for anything, he's suing his own label for taking the same (majority) cut of the profits on digital sales as on traditional sales. This would be an important, and I think positive, precedent for all artists. Why should labels take the same enormous percentage of sales when the expenses and effort involved on their behalf is reduced so sharply with digital downloads?
Because there is a contract involved. If the record companies are violating the contract, they should be (and probably will be) punished. If they are simply doing what the contract says, then the artist has no right to go back later and whine that he's not making enough.
At issue in this case is the conflict between what the record label tells the artist they're getting and what the customer actually gets.
Artists get more money when their music is licensed vs. when a copy is sold, according to their contract.
What's happening is that UMG is telling Eminem that his music is being *sold* on iTunes. Thus, he gets a lower royalty rate.
However, if you look at the actual details of what happens when you pay money for a track on iTunes, you'll see that you are not purchasing a copy, you are receiving a license to play the track on a limited number of devices, etc.
Technically, the same thing applies when you buy a CD in the store. You are buying the CD, but you are only receiving a copyright license to the music on the CD. There's no real difference other than the fact that the CD license comes with some added hardware.
This is a bit off topic but this Pirate Bay argument is flawed.
What they don't take into account (and deliberately fail to mention), is that while this effect of pirated music promoting sales is relevant to the way the market is *today* (with pirating being illegal and therefore marginalised), it's not necessarily true once pirating is legalised as Pirate Bay wishes it to be. There is no evidence one way or the other really, but common sense argues against it.
Right now it's difficult to rip off things or find places to download them from, the quality is dodgy and the fact that one can cheaply and legally buy something from iTunes means that the majority of folks will just buy it there. Thus the pirates remain a dedicated, but marginalised minority. Now, it *might* be that making it legal to rip off anything you want whenever you want without hiding in the shadows like Pirate Bay or LimeWire users, will not change things appreciably, but it's far from certain and a bit counter intuitive.
It's also possible that making it legal to do stuff like Pirate Bay will drive a commercialisation of the stolen material. If you knew couldn't get arrested for it, wouldn't a *lot* of people set up Pirate Bay like sites all over the world overnight? Wouldn't they also be rather heavily publicised instead of a well kept secret? Wouldn't users flock to them instead of being scared to get caught as they are now? It seems to me they might.
Pirate Bay's arguments are mostly just defensive justifications for stuff that they simply "want to do." They are the arguments of a privileged teenager, not a noble libertarian thrust. If no one had arrested them or if it wasn't illegal, they would not even be making them. I mean the main Pirate Bay guy is hardly a genius or anything and has been very consistent in stating his case along the lines of "I do this because I want to, and I should be allowed to do what I want."
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
You make good points, but I haven't actually seen convincing evidence that it's good for the record labels even in TODAY's environment. The more popular music is most commonly pirated and after music is pirated, it is popular. Pretty circular argument. I don't think there's any real evidence to support their claims. Even so, as you point out, it's irrelevant because what they're proposing would end the industry as we know it.
I think that's where we're headed. I for one think this case is great and exactly what we need right now. Artists are typically under contract and a good portion of that contract covers recoupables for the studio. Digital downloads should not let the studios profits from the virtualizing of warehouses and packaging at the expense of the artist. The raison d'etre of the studio is to promote the artists and distribute the music.
Yes I see the future shaking out like this.
New artists are under the wings of the distributors. They get the smallest cut.
Established artists have more "brand" recognition and will be able to negotiate far better rates for digital distribution or even go it alone (though with the radio still a significant force self distributorship would be difficult with regard to getting broadcast attention).
We're coming to a point where established artists need the studios less and if I'm a Prince or Eminem or Radiohead I'm looking at the potential of 70 cent profit or more per track and it's a lot more appealing than going the studio route.
Keep in mind studios also swipe up copyright and can make a mint off of licensing hit songs for commercial and movie usage.
I hope the studios lose. Their stranghold is waning and for good reason.
Sorry, but that's an extremely short-sighted view.
Our entire economy is built on the validity of contracts. If the artists can come in and say "we don't like the contract any more, so we're going to sue to change it", contracts become very nebulous.
If the record companies are violating the contract, they should be punished. If, OTOH, the artists simply signed contracts and changed their minds later, that's just too bad. I certainly don't get to welch on my contracts simply because I changed my mind.
Now, the artists are free to take these market changes into account in signing future contracts - and they should. But retroactive changes simply because one side is unhappy is a 'cure' that's worse than the disease.
And yeah, I have heard the expression you refer to and yeah, I do make judgements based on 'covers'. But there is a huge difference between a book cover and music art work. I bet you anything that if you were presented with a number of CDs having never heard of the bands you'd make a pretty good choice based on the covers alone. (not so with books) But I never said I'd judge the 'music' by the cover.
Whether you said that string of words doesn't matter that much because it sure seemed like you meant it like that. I wonder if it really helps you narrow it down or if you think it does. The mind can play tricks.
The point is that I haven't yet heard the music but I have to make choices because I just don't have the time to listen to everything.
But that's the point of recommendation engines, it helps narrow down what you might like to items that most favorably suit your tastes. I really don't know if the cover is any good at narrowing it down except to eliminate genres if something is miscategorized.
Wow, did I really have to explain all of this?
You don't have to, but it helps clarify what you meant when you made your earlier statements. That's part of standard conversation. Sometimes someone mistates things, sometimes other people misreads or misunderstands those statements.
Millions of listeners would ultimately rank the music and then you could listen to the top few. Now you have a narrowed down selection based on others actually listening to the music, surely that's a better than going by the art work.
Sure, but I think you are being optimistic. I don't think 'millions' of people will bother to listen to amateur demos. You could argue that MOMA or the Tate Modern should have an annex where anybody could exhibit and sell their art but I doubt many people would bother to look. I think you are getting carried away with the 'concept' and not really considering the likely 'reality'. But who knows? I have been wrong before.
p.s. I admit I've grabbed a book in an airport based on the cover!
My example was really hypothetical, but still, there you go. What about bottles of wine?
Now, the artists are free to take these market changes into account in signing future contracts - and they should. But retroactive changes simply because one side is unhappy is a 'cure' that's worse than the disease.
How so? Why would that be worse?
Contracts are always being re-negotiated. In this case the argument would be that the circumstances on which the original contract is based have changed so lets re-negotiate. Depending on the length of the contract that may be quite a reasonable position.
My example was really hypothetical, but still, there you go. What about bottles of wine?
My first wife always said look for the plain labels, the fancy ones are usually crap wine
Whether you said that string of words doesn't matter that much because it sure seemed like you meant it like that. I wonder if it really helps you narrow it down or if you think it does. The mind can play tricks.
Granted, and in a sense I did make a musical judgement (its a hypothetical situation I hasten to add). We all make judgements all the time. It doesn't matter how its done. Give me a thousand tracks to choose from I may just chuck out the first 900 just because I just don't have the time to listen to that many tracks. Its called 'dealing with information overload'. If I remember right this was about the role music labels play in making certain judgements for me. On the whole that aspect of their existence has served me well.
But that's the point of recommendation engines, it helps narrow down what you might like to items that most favorably suit your tastes. I really don't know if the cover is any good at narrowing it down except to eliminate genres if something is miscategorized.
Recommendation engines are good within sub genres. If I was to listen to what the majority of people listened to generally speaking I'd have to be sectioned. It would drive me nuts.
You don't have to, but it helps clarify what you meant when you made your earlier statements. That's part of standard conversation. Sometimes someone mistates things, sometimes other people misreads or misunderstands those statements.
Well, OK. I'm sorry. I could have refrained from that last comment but I had just written a long reply and then my session timed out so I had to do it again. Goddammit!
By the way - the way I hear 'new' music is by listening to Last.Fm. A more sophisticated method than plain old user recommendation.
My first wife always said look for the plain labels, the fancy ones are usually crap wine
I thought it was the other way around
Sure, but I think you are being optimistic. I don't think 'millions' of people will bother to listen to amateur demos. You could argue that MOMA or the Tate Modern should have an annex where anybody could exhibit and sell their art but I doubt many people would bother to look. I think you are getting carried away with the 'concept' and not really considering the likely 'reality'. But who knows? I have been wrong before.
Apples and Oranges. The Tate example is real world that takes time and effort to see. Digital media such as on iTunes and YouTube is part of a totally new world where millions of people world wide can experience, share and collaborate. I am not being optimistic at all really, I truly believe over time such an amateur entry collection in iTunes would be (and I did say ultimately) get continually ranked. Anything really good would get virally marketed and new stars would be discovered. I bet recording companies would keep an eye on the top rankings too.
I thought it was the other way around
I didn't say she was right ...