itunes music store unfair
Hey just found this site
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
Sorry if this has been posted before.
This guy just want's to justify the fact that he steals music.
Disccuss
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
Sorry if this has been posted before.
This guy just want's to justify the fact that he steals music.
Disccuss
Comments
and i wonder how many $1 bills he has sent to artists. i'm gonna say zero.
Apple's 35 cents has to pay for:
Bandwidth
Credit card fees
Legal fees (rather significant I would guess given the music biz)
Hardware to run the site
Admins to run the site
Advertisment for iTunes (mitigated by the fact that it piggybacks on iPod adverts)
Probably some other stuff as well!
Though it may tick off guys like this, record labels have a right to sell music and make a profit. It is a tough and brutal world when you have to pay $1 for a song, and of all the woes inflicted on humanity over the ages, this surely ranks rather highly, but quit complaining and realize that iTMS makes it possible for smaller labels to undercut larger labels when it comes to music sales and this will benefit the artists.
Folks, Apple isn't milking people with iTMS. They may well be propping up RIAA, but surprise surprise folks, RIAA has a right to sell their content. Hopefully, RIAA will be squeezed out when they no longer control the distribution channels.
If I were Steve Jobs, I would sue this site on the basis of their using images directly from Apple's Switch campaign without paying royalties to Apple (that is illegal). No, I would probably give them free iPods and a $100 monthly allowance at iTMS and see if their self righteous spiel keeps them from supporting the evil RIAA.
Interestingly, these people seem to think that labels exist to extort musicians. Labels do actuallyhelp musicians produce their music.
The proposed solution basicly sucks: have Apple be a MP3 gateway to a bunch of musician hosted sites. No uniform look & feel, let alone no convenient way for Apple (or joe musician) to actually make money off of the sale. The eBay model does not produce a good purchasing experience for music online. The guy is an idiot.
Originally posted by HOM
It's my understanding, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, that musicians only make pennies per cd sold. If that is in fact the case and the musicians do make 11¢ per song then it seems to me that they are getting a much better deal from iTunes then they are from selling cds. Now, what's this guy's deal? He expects Apple to overcome 50 years of momentum in the music industry?
That would be $1.10 per ten song album. Probably quite a bit better than what they get on a CD.
Sounds like just another idiot malcontent with too much free time raging against The Man?.
Just by the look of the site I would say this is a disgruntled PC user with serious mac (penis) envy!!!
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Apple's 35 cents has to pay for:
Bandwidth
Credit card fees
Legal fees (rather significant I would guess given the music biz)
Hardware to run the site
Admins to run the site
Advertisment for iTunes (mitigated by the fact that it piggybacks on iPod adverts)
Probably some other stuff as well!
Bingo.
Apple is losing money on iTMS. It's a loss leader. It's a trojan horse for the profitable iPod sales.
The same goes for the fee to the music labels, but for a lesser extent. Labels have to pay for recording sessions, promotions, advertisements, etc etc. Any artist knows that the way you make real money is by doing concerts and other live performances. There's a lot less overhead involved in those.
Moving to Digital Hub.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
That would be $1.10 per ten song album. Probably quite a bit better than what they get on a CD.
It depends on the artist, some make more like $1.70 if they write their own songs and have a good contract.
I'm a musician, and I think that A$$ just want to rip off the artistes more then the record companies do. He is advocating that everyone should just download music from point to point hubs and, if you want to, toss some money at the artist. Right, you want to steal my music, then if you are in the mood, maybe, perhaps, toss a few cents my way.
How in hell is rampant copying and distribution of music on-line better for the artist? I mean the record companies are bad, but at least the artists are getting a bit of money out of it.
I'm hoping that once legitimate on-line distribution get established, it will let some artists bypass the record companies and get 65% of the gross. I think it will happen, but we will have to wait and see.
1) Display the artist's cut for each track ... that would be "interesting to know" and even more interesting to see how sales for each artist are then affected.
2) Cut out the middleman idea ... display the artst's track listing and then proivde a link to their website - thereby cutting out the record companies' commission. (Whilst present recording contracts may not permit this, it does propose an obviously better deal for the artists, which could be used in the future.) Hmmm... if not for anything else, there could be merit in Apple creating an unsigned artists section of iTMS working on this premise. What do you all think about that?
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I've said it before in the other thread about this but...this guy complains about the artists only getting $.11 out of the deal while he advocates STEALING the music, which means the artist gets $.00 out of the deal. Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me. Does this puzzle anyone else?
The "artist" (or sometimes, occasionally, an artist without quotation marks) gets 11¢ to pay back the 2,000,000,000 cents they owe to the record company. That is what is not fair.
And you can't steal music by using P2P. You've been $$$$ing brainwashed like the rest of them. If you want to support an artist, you have to find ways around their bondage contracts.
Barto
Originally posted by Mac+
[snip]... Hmmm... if not for anything else, there could be merit in Apple creating an unsigned artists section of iTMS working on this premise. What do you all think about that?
Actually, scrap that idea - that would be an incredible and unnecessary headache for them I think.
Better they devote their efforts to improving hardware quality control and finding ways to lower the prices of their products, whilst still managing to make a healthy profit. Surely, that's not asking too much?
Originally posted by Barto
The "artist" (or sometimes, occasionally, an artist without quotation marks) gets 11¢ to pay back the 2,000,000,000 cents they owe to the record company. That is what is not fair.
And you can't steal music by using P2P. You've been $$$$ing brainwashed like the rest of them. If you want to support an artist, you have to find ways around their bondage contracts.
Barto
selling one copy at 11c isn't fair. But what if you sell 10,000,000. Repeatedly. I'd say that is going a fair way toward paying back the $2kk.
One album of 10 songs earning 1.10 for the artist * 10,000,000 sales = ???. I think you'll find the figure is more than any single album contract.
If something is for sale and you do not pay for it (as is the case via P2P), then I would consider that theft.
And, ultimately, these bondage contracts are not compulsory. You can negotiate better deals. After all it is an agreement. The artist has the final say.
One thought: If the downhill guy sends a couple of bucks to an artist - how or where does he send it to? I've got a vision of Sherryl Crow turning up at her bank with dozens of mailbags full of coins and small notes.
Originally posted by Barto
I pay for merchandise when I know the money goes straight to the band. Which basically means unsigned bands.
You're up late.
Originally posted by MarkL
If something is for sale and you do not pay for it (as is the case via P2P), then I would consider that theft.
I generally agree with your points, but that is *the worst* definition of theft I have ever heard.
I'm guessing you never lend your car to friends, or give them lifts as that would be 'stealing' from car rental firms and taxis. And libraries are just hives of scum and villainy by this definition.
But as I said, generally you're correct and I don't understand all this wailing about the poor artists being abused. It's not the artist that get multi-million contracts (the ones making up the majority of iTMS by number and sales) that I'm worried about. It's the ones that never get signed because the only way they can reach the masses *and* make money is to go through the RIAA etc.
iTunes changes that, and that is a *good thing*, just like a band selling their own merchandise through their own website is a good thing. Less middlemen (or disintermediation) is supposed to be one of the benefits of the interenet, especially when some of the services provided by the middleman, such as physical distribution, are no longer relevant.
Originally posted by Mac+
Display the artist's cut for each track ... that would be "interesting to know" and even more interesting to see how sales for each artist are then affected.
That would be pretty pointless unless there was an entire dissertation written by the artist's accountants detailing the various forms of payment that an artist receives and estimates of the value received in return for money that goes elsewhere . There's far more to splitting up the profits than just Apple/the Artist/Record Industry Fatcats.
To give one obvious example, artists make less money on cover versions and things that contain samples.
Whatever, this guys gripe is with the record industry as a whole, not iTunes. This article written by Steve Albini - one of the true indie legends - provides a much better look into everything that is wrong in the record industry.