Obviously not a creator of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong, I think that the big record companies' threats to sue the little guys are ridiculous. Apple showed them all how its done. Having said that, the comment about 'who cares if the artists are compensated' is a bit nearsighted, IMO. There are plenty of creators of intellectual property who don't have the ability to 'tour' or do other things that generate cash. I have no problem with musicians and writers trying to collect royalties on their works. Rock musicians are only one example of creators of intellectual property. Can you regulate the internet? No. Can you get paid for your work? Yes, and you should try hard to do so. No, they shouldn't be thankful that they get extra money... you should be thankful that they make art that you enjoy. That is, unless you don't enjoy art.... Re: the Russian site... why would anyone even bother with this? You are willing to pay $0.20 but not willing to pay $0.85 for a song you like?
I don't know, I design databases. I sell 'em to a client, and move on. I "tour". And yes, they should be thankful for the extra money, AND I'm thankful they create art. Musicians can tour for money, they can work, like the rest of us. This recording and mass marketing is recent, parasitical shit. Socialistic, getting money without laboring.
Correct. There is a cut off rate for everything that people are willing to buy. If I pay 90 cents per song I pretty much end up like buying the CD from the store, but I have to bother burning it and I don't even get the artwork. The point is here that the price of musicdownload should be considerable LESS than buying the CD from the store. Thanks Banjo for the clarification. Here is the site by the way if anyone care to look it up: www.mp3search.ru I think they are legit and under the Legal page they say they pay the artists. However! There is a reference to a Russian law and I think they treat copyright issues "slightly" differently than in the West. My Russian is a bit rusty these days, so I couldn't read that part, but I guess that's how they can afford to sell the music so cheap... Edit: There used to be a website called mp3.com where small artists sold their CDs for about $6. I think that was a reasonable price for a CD. Since no middleman was involved, even the artists got a bigger cut. Of course the site was properly bought up by a bigger fish...
You might look at allofmp3.com, another Russian DL site. They claim they are lega under Russian laws and pay fees to the copyright holders. Also, they take PayPal as well as some other, non credit card forms of payment. Prices are low also. DS
I understand. For me, I often don't want all the album cuts and I am willing to pay $1.80 to get the two songs I want. Anyway, if we set aside for the moment the bizarre idea that creators of intellectual property should do it as a sideline or hobby and be expected to work a day job 'like the rest of us' or that recorded music is a socialist plot, it's up to the creators of music to figure out a way to use file-sharing in a way that will serve your needs and mine as well, now that the 'means of production' are in their hands. I agree 100% that a download should be cheaper than a CD, and at $0.90/song, it is borderline.
If I understand the music business correctly, when you buy a CD for let's say $13, only about $1 goes to the artists, $2-3 is the cost and the rest is for the recordcompany. They could argue that promotion costs a lot, but that is another issue. Thus if there are 10-12 songs on the CD, the artists don't really get more than 10 cents per song anyway. The real money comes from touring nowadays. Some artists even argue that downloading thier songs for free/cheap helps to bring the crowd in to the concerts. Again, when mp3.com was functioning the old way, several small artists could make their record in home studios (thanks to technology) put up the songs for very cheap and they were getting most of the charged $6 or so. That was a really good deal specially for less known artists. Of course because it was a good deal for both sides, it had to end... Edit: I have just looked it up, now they are some kind of Napster affiliate and they charge 99 cents per song...
Re: mechanical royalties, it depends a lot on the artist. However, it would be misleading to suggest that non-mechanical royalties in toto cannot represent a significant income for an artist. There are a ton of other ways in which a song or song segment can generate income besides actual album sales. I don't know if I would agree that the 'real money' comes from touring for all artists. Just ask Led Zep. Sure, the big acts are making huge money touring but they are also making huge money in licensing and merch and publishing. The record company takes a cut of the publishing from any artist they sign. Why? Because they know where the money is. But isn't the record company separate from the owners of the publishing? lol... good question, one that anyone who wants to understand the music business should answer. Another point is that not all content creators are performing artists. Songwriters don't 'tour'. I think that when you guys read the 'top ten money earners on tour' stats that are always published in pop media these days, you get the idea that touring is the big way for musicians to make money. That's a simplification, IMO, and I made a living playing the bass for about 12 years. Anyway, my point is that this isn't a simple analysis. But you are right about the average royalty being paid to a typical recording artist being about $0.10 to $0.12 per song.