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 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?
Well said. Those other two just don't get it. They hear Apple and iTunes and think Apple is being sued. Digital downloads and the record label are the topic of the lawsuit. Apple has no involvement in this.
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!
No need to apologize, I was just explaining, no offense meant or taken. I wish web browsers could be a little smarter about retaining entered text, I lose good posts on occasion too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
There are contracts involved, but contracts aren't always clear, and there can be different interpretations. From the article, it sounds to me that this may well be the case.
From what I've heard, there are provisions for "breakage" such that the label doesn't have to pay royalties on discs damaged during distribution and shipment. And the labels for some reason still take that deduction with digital downloads, even though the concept can't even logically apply to downloads.
Comments
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.
And whaddaya know? http://www.garageband.com
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?
Well said. Those other two just don't get it. They hear Apple and iTunes and think Apple is being sued. Digital downloads and the record label are the topic of the lawsuit. Apple has no involvement in this.
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!
No need to apologize, I was just explaining, no offense meant or taken. I wish web browsers could be a little smarter about retaining entered text, I lose good posts on occasion too.
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.
There are contracts involved, but contracts aren't always clear, and there can be different interpretations. From the article, it sounds to me that this may well be the case.
From what I've heard, there are provisions for "breakage" such that the label doesn't have to pay royalties on discs damaged during distribution and shipment. And the labels for some reason still take that deduction with digital downloads, even though the concept can't even logically apply to downloads.