RIAA Launches New Round of Lawsuits

[herodotus]

a) On average artists make about 20% of the price of a CD by the time it is sold at a record store

Just curious, where did you see this?

[The Chase]

A CM mag from a year or 2 ago, as well as my signed cousin.

-EDIT-come to think of it, it may be less than 20% instead of more, I don't remember exactly.

[John Vulich]

a) On average artists make about 20% of the price of a CD by the time it is sold at a record store (varies from different labels and record stores), so way more than 10 cents.

20% off the whole unit price or based on a smaller percentage? I know that the Motion Picture studios don't give percentages of the whole sales amount off of DVD/Videos (referred to as "dollar one"). They pay out their percentages off of a 20% royalty that retailers must pay per unit. They pocket the other 80% (of their wholesale cost). I would imagine that the Recording Industry must have similar "creative" accounting techiniques.

Either way does your Brother play live shows and, if so, what percentage of his income comes from playing out versus CDs?

b) how the hell would a p2p program advertise? sure, most p2p programs actually have banners and stuff, but nothing like the million-dollar ad campaigns on the radio.

Maybe the economics wouldn't work out to be realistic. I don't know. The fact is that the paradigm is changing and new ideas need to be adopted. Music has only really been a commodity since the advent of recording technologies. Perhaps it was just a short lived concept. Before recording was possible the only monies that Artists used to make was based on their live shows and publishing. It might just be headed in that direction again.

[barbakane]

One point that I don't really see reflected is that a lot of the music heard on the radio is pretty watered down, tried and tested formula based, crank em out till they puke drivel.
The RIAA has a buttload of lawyers. What they should do, is fire half the friggin' lawyers, and use that money to help develop new talent. Most of the stuff I've heard as a result of KVR blows anything away I could ever hope to hear on the radio.
THAT is exactly why I've boycotted listening to the radio for the last 6 years. I choose what I listen to, which new artist to explore, without all the brainwashing from the radio.
Perhaps that is our strongest statement. To simply boycott listening to the radio in the first place.

[2legged]

My wife worked at Crapitol, uhm, I mean Capitol Records for 19 years. She was the 1st senior female vice president at that company.

During her time at the company which included a short stint in A&R (we have a gold record on the wall for her only signing which was a band called Missing Persons), she eventually became a senior vice president of marketing & administartion. That position led to some major involvements with NARAS (the organization that sponsors the Grammys) and the RIAA.

I'm only telling you guys all of this about my wife to show you that I've had a close up view of how the RIAA actually works and as a result, I have NO respect for them whatsoever. Regardless of what they say, they are clearly there in the interests of the companies, not the artists.

Just to show you what assholes they really are, here's a link to a report about how
The RIAA actually tried to sue the dead!

John Vulich is totally correct in his remarks about the percentage breakdowns of who makes what. It's really sad that most musicians don't learn much about how the deals and the politics at most record labels actually work. Myself, I don't download Mp3's but I've seen the pros and cons of that argument and it seems that most people who download Mp3's usually end up buying those artists and bands' albums anyway. Now remember, I said most, not all.

Now if you wanna talk about some major theft of money from artist's mechanical royalties, do some research into how many "promo copies" of artists' albums that are made by the companies and what actually happens to damned near half of them. There are millions and millions of dollars being made from the illegal sales of "promo copies".

So who's making all that cash? It definitely ain't the artists. Well let's see, who has direct access to those "promo copies"? You don't have to be a PhD to figure out that one. Now guess who pays for all of those promo copies? That's right, the artist pays for 'em, all of 'em!

This is scam that's well known inside most of the record labels and it's been going on since the 70's! Have you ever heard or read about the RIAA ever doing anything about that? Never!

'Sorry but F*~ck the RIAA!

[munchkin]

The RIAA must feel like it's pissing in a wind tunnel. This is the revenge of the consumer for all those years of shite music and rip-off prices.

The RIAA have about as much concern for their musicians as Dahmer had for his victims. Let's not forget the thousands of talented people the music industry has destroyed through it's manipulative and dishonest practices.

Very few people would agree that a pimp has the best interests of his hookers at heart but the myth continues that multinational record companies are just cultivating the talents of their musicians.

P2P isn't affecting sales - it's the mercenary exploitation of musicians as products that has alienated the music buying public. There is no proof that sales have been affected by P2P yet the RIAA still manages to convince some people that this is the case.

It's just another propaganda war full of dirty tricks that makes Watergate seem like a Sunday picnic. They're all rotten to the core - the bastards!

[RoyNoahJones]

It's different because the dicks at RIAA can not get at those who record off of the radio.

You're not an artist/musician ? are you ?.

Radios are a promotion tool. and then you're supposed to buy the music of the artist you liked. which part you don't get ?

Same here, kvr makes the promo of the products by keeping you informed on their releases. according to your statement, you'd consider normal to go and download the crack, and congrat the developper on this forum. because the bsa is too stupid to stop file sharing.

Now...my first question wasn't to offense you, it's just that chances of getting signed in a record company and getting the stuff released on large scales are more and more slim for new artists. not because their music is necessarily bad, but downloads and such are reducing direct incomes to continue investments on the development. so if you don't get a massive hit on your first single, you can almost consider yourself out in most record companies. and of course, the artist will earn nothing out of this, because the sales didn't cover the primary investments.

So you see, any illegal downloads are free, but not of consequences. We all pay for this at the end.

[The O'Neil Twins]

Dahmer

My sociology teacher went to gradeschool with him (and because of him, that's why she became a sociology teacher....) and so did my friend's dad. I live in Akron, Ohio so that's why I hear lots of different stories about him.

Well anyways, sorry to go off topic. F the RIAA

[RoyNoahJones]

This is the revenge of the consumer for all those years of shite music and rip-off prices.

P2P isn't affecting sales - it's the mercenary exploitation of musicians as products that has alienated the music buying public.

Hehe Munchkin... where have you been ?

Exploitation of artists & musicians is the rule #1 of this business , cleopatra's musicians probably shared the same thoughts.

The difference is that the audience/public says :
- You'll have dreams.
- You'll sort your life, invest in your instruments.
- you'll pay recordings, be inspired, write, compose.
- perform, meet people, travel, use hours of your precious life.
- discuss on how you could improve yourself and reach your goals.

BUT

i don't see why i should pay for that, because if i click on an icon, i can get the fruit of all that for free. so why should i be the only idiot to pay for that, when some other folks can get this for free.

Multiply this by the number of p2p users and you have a situation.

And the major tracks they're downloading are the 'shite' as you call it, because that's the only they heard of... how would they know about artists they never heard of ?

And how evil would that be to rip artists who are putting the small money they have into self promotion ?

Major companies have all the funds to survive the P2P era, but some labels who are trying to promote different kinds of artists, are exposed to a real problem. They don't have unlimited finances.

[RoyNoahJones]

instead of saying f**k the RIAA, just say f**k the Artists (a bit more than they are already), that would be less hypocrit.

[nuisance sonore]

It's different because the dicks at RIAA can not get at those who record off of the radio.

You're not an artist/musician ? are you ?.

Radios are a promotion tool. and then you're supposed to buy the music of the artist you liked. which part you don't get ?

Same here, kvr makes the promo of the products by keeping you informed on their releases. according to your statement, you'd consider normal to go and download the crack, and congrat the developper on this forum. because the bsa is too stupid to stop file sharing.

Now...my first question wasn't to offense you, it's just that chances of getting signed in a record company and getting the stuff released on large scales are more and more slim for new artists. not because their music is necessarily bad, but downloads and such are reducing direct incomes to continue investments on the development. so if you don't get a massive hit on your first single, you can almost consider yourself out in most record companies. and of course, the artist will earn nothing out of this, because the sales didn't cover the primary investments.

So you see, any illegal downloads are free, but not of consequences. We all pay for this at the end.

I read it, I understand it, but I don't believe one word of it. It was the same argument when FM radio came out, when cassette tape came out, when VHS machine came out etc... This argument has proven itself to be worthless time and time again.
Have you ever downloaded mp3 from p2p? well I have, and most of it sounds like crap, made by kids who knows nothing about audio on their home computer; if it serve one purpose is to let peoples have a glance of the music that's out there and then, as already mentionned in this thread somewhere, make an informed music purchase. Hit the sale of CD's? I'm sure you don't even believe that yourself for one minute.

I'll tell you what hurt the sales of CD's: crappy uninspired music that's made to fit into a mold by the big recording company, the same crappy music overprocessed to the point of sucking all life out of it by engineer with their hand tied by the same big record company and, with the venues of CD's, the disapearance of singles (you remember those? they were sold on plastic platters for about $0.60 and contained only one hit with a bonus at the back); when you buy a CD for $20.00 and only this one song is good on it, belive me you regret those 45 and you're very carefull about your next purchase.

[munchkin]

It's different because the dicks at RIAA can not get at those who record off of the radio.

You're not an artist/musician ? are you ?.

Radios are a promotion tool. and then you're supposed to buy the music of the artist you liked. which part you don't get?

The part where the radio doesn't play many artists we like.

Same here, kvr makes the promo of the products by keeping you informed on their releases. according to your statement, you'd consider normal to go and download the crack, and congrat the developper on this forum. because the bsa is too stupid to stop file sharing.

Next I suspect you'll be comparing downloading mp3's with bank robbery. Nice predictable propaganda tactic but we ain't stoopid.

Now...my first question wasn't to offense you, it's just that chances of getting signed in a record company and getting the stuff released on large scales are more and more slim for new artists. not because their music is necessarily bad, but downloads and such are reducing direct incomes to continue investments on the development. so if you don't get a massive hit on your first single, you can almost consider yourself out in most record companies. and of course, the artist will earn nothing out of this, because the sales didn't cover the primary investments.

So you see, any illegal downloads are free, but not of consequences. We all pay for this at the end.

Interesting fantasy based on what evidence? Did the RIAA tell you this? How do you account for the selective and exploitative practices employed by the record industry before P2P? Must've been home taping then. Always some excuse for bad behaviour - not even McDonalds have managed to brainwash people into believing their business is so good for us.

[CC4]

f**k the RIAA.. Support independent artists from this wonderful online community.

that's why i've been reseaching portable MP3 players with ogg vorbis and FLAC capabilities included. what better way than to download and listen to the enormous amount of cheap to free downloads from the underground artist community than plop it on a little portable device?

[RoyNoahJones]

Next I suspect you'll be comparing downloading mp3's with bank robbery. Nice predictable propaganda tactic but we ain't stoopid.

I didn't compare it to bank robbery but we can try

Every day i pass by the bank and i see that good amound of money that would bring me a lot fun and satisfaction, though i'd have to work to get it. on the otherhand if i could find a tool (gun or whatever) to get a hand on this for free, that'd be nice, and that wouldn't hurt anyone, because banks have so much money that they wouldn't feel it.

That's just a question of morality

i could as well as an artist say :

LOL look at those folks on TV they just lost their job , they got fired , their factory is closing hahah.

oh ! and those ones who are on strike because they consider they should earn more money because life is getting expensive, and they only want to work 35 hours per week.

i should think then , f**k them all, at least they're getting something for their work, and some of them probably thinks that we should get no money for our music because they decided so and felt normal to download music.

And some others could think, i don't give a f**k if they lost/not get paid enough for job, as i don't have one myself.

So you see this has nothing to do with RIAA brainwashing. Some artists are not spoiled kids, living at dads and mum's place, with a job or family money, or making music as a hobby to impress their uncle and aunt on sundays in front of an apple pie.

So every efforts to find some ways to get the artists paid for their work, will get my support.

call me naive if you want to.

[John Vulich]

Now...my first question wasn't to offense you, it's just that chances of getting signed in a record company and getting the stuff released on large scales are more and more slim for new artists. not because their music is necessarily bad, but downloads and such are reducing direct incomes to continue investments on the development. so if you don't get a massive hit on your first single, you can almost consider yourself out in most record companies. and of course, the artist will earn nothing out of this, because the sales didn't cover the primary investments.

So you see, any illegal downloads are free, but not of consequences. We all pay for this at the end.

I don't know what you are basing your information on but I think you are totally wrong.

Here are some well researched facts that run counter your statements...

RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy

Like I said earlier I think the real problem here is the fear, that the RIAA has, that it will lose control over it's distribution monopoly because P2P systems allow Artists to bypass them and connect direct to the listeners.

I know of many Artists that are learning to leverage P2P, websites and message forums to build an enough of and audience to earn decent living without the need of a record label behind them.

Anyway, as I also said earlier, it is my understanding that most mid level Artists don't make substantial money of off CD sales anyway. The majority of their income comes from live shows, merchandise and licensing. There are numerous accounts of smaller acts wanting to give their music away on P2P systems because the understand the power of viral marketing and see it as a powerfull way to drive their other income streams. The labels of course never allow them to do this.

Right now the Supreme Court is deciding on a hearing initiated by the MPAA and RIAA that seeks to hold P2P software developers responsible for piracy. I hope you can understand the ramifacations of this potentially catastrophic blow to Artist independence.