Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ultimate Guitar.com)   Most musicians say that the internet has helped them make more money, despite P2P programs   (ultimate-guitar.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9152 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2004 at 6:33 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-27 07:12:38 PM  
junta:

but when any of the lossless formats become the norm there will be a hell of alot more lawsuits happenin.

Like... um... wav?

I'm happy with my collection of mp3 and Ogg. I'm so hard of hearing that I don't notice a drop in quality. :P
 
2004-12-27 07:12:39 PM  
junta
MP3 might not be a lossless format, but that doesn't really matter, since it is already good enough for almost everyone (except weirdos like me who uses stuff like Ogg Vorbis, etc ;)).
 
2004-12-27 07:13:19 PM  
Of course the record companies fear educated customers. If the customers are able to find bands or artists that stomp the shiat out of their offerings they won't be making money. This is all about a fear of competition. If artists can promote their own music they can cut out the supurfulous middle man, the record company becomes extinct.

And they should be.
 
2004-12-27 07:17:28 PM  
genesyn

Amen.
 
2004-12-27 07:18:34 PM  
I know quite a few musicians and at least 47% of them have a hard time keeping their check book balanced. Do you really think these guys have a clue of the financial impact of people ripping off their stuff?

I do think the Internet is a great tool for the small time musicians to sell their stuff. Maybe we can get away from this boring 4 note melody diminished chord drone that is being called rock music these days.
 
2004-12-27 07:19:59 PM  
if it wasn't for Napster, I would never have heard of Metallica, and been scared into buying all their albums.

//Misses the glory days of napster
 
2004-12-27 07:20:04 PM  
aaadarklaw: And they should be.

Rock on.
 
2004-12-27 07:20:44 PM  
yeah wav is lossless obviously, but the files are still pretty big.. using flac or ape will shrink the files to about half the size.. still big, but it kicks ass if you want to have an exact duplicate. .. depending on the mp3, ogg, etc.. encoder used, it can be hard to tell a difference with the original wav, but hear them side by side and you will .. especially the bass when heard through a good stereo.
 
2004-12-27 07:21:48 PM  
there is a new deal comin around soon.

the only way to stop it is for isp's to block the ports.

think of freenet marries bt
 
2004-12-27 07:22:18 PM  
Echo +1 to those who have explained how even platinum albums tend to make very little money for the artists. The RIAA companies load all risk onto the artists and take all the guaranteed cuts for themselves. You're entirely right and it's damned reprehensible.

I remember reading an article a few years back about the bands that had bucked the trend, and that was generally because they had already produced a hit product and were able to leverage the labels into some good deals...

SOUNDGARDEN - Had several successful indie albums and A&M records wanted them right as grunge was exploding. They made sure to force the label to take all risk and production/promotion costs, and the BAND got to keep the unleveraged revenues. This might explain why Soundgarden tended to have a great many singles, videos, and tours, despite their sales numbers being strong but not THAT damned strong. A&M had to overpromote them to be sure they'd get their ROI.

RUSH - Self-produced their debut record and couldn't supply boxes of it fast enough to satisfy market demand in the Steel Belt cities in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Zeppelin was doing very well and Rush's sound was close enough to tap into that crowd while progressing into new territory. Rush demanded complete artistic control and shared risk with Mercury Records. This came in handy after their third record bombed and the label put immense pressure on Rush to make another Zeppelin-esque record; the band gave Mercury the finger and instead produced the commercially unfriendly but very progressive "2112", which went on to sell millions and established Rush as an international success.

NIRVANA - Had hit albums already for indie label Sub Pop. When Geffen came calling, Sub Pop and the trio decided to make sure they got theirs before bending over and submitting to the Great Corporate Machine. Risk was shared somewhat, but the main cherry in Nirvana's deal with Geffen was a huge cash-up-front paycheck. Given how good his label deal was, Kurdt Cobain must have really been depressed before suiciding... most musicians would give anything to have had his contract and livelihood.

HOOBASTANK - ProTools and Dan Estrin self-produced their early material and they had already built a following before Island Records noticed them. Shared risk and artistic control came to the band, though apparently their share of the revenues is weighted heavily toward swag and away from CD sales, as is more typical of other bands today. Certainly would explain why their website relentlessly pimps the fanclub and apparel. Island has done a masterful job promoting them, as is evident by the mass-media exposure for The Reason.

It does seem, after looking at how things have gone for others, that self-producing and bargaining from a position of strength is the way to go. Just getting contacted by a scout at a club is a recipe for disaster. Next thing you know, your entire band is bankrupt and you've wasted years of your life producing records that languish on the shelves.
 
2004-12-27 07:25:33 PM  
I've been thinking that there is no real link between P2P and revenue. This is the first article that I've read that starts to prove it.

My opinion is that the record companies need to basically sell CD's at cost. Or maybe a DVD with some cool extras (that will play in your car). Make money on merchandise and concerts.

I'd also like to see companies approach signing artists in a different way. I would guess that a lot of bands get signed that don't make it. I'd suggest that they sign a band, record an EP (3 or 4 songs) and distribute it electronically only. If they meet a certain criteria, record more songs and put out a CD. Why go through the whole contractual, production, manufacturing, and distribution processes on unproven bands?

It would seem that there are much more efficient and modern ways to create and make money in this industry.

/haven't bought an album in 5 years
 
2004-12-27 07:29:19 PM  
DIGITALgimpus: If P2P helped professional musicians make money, they would have created their own network by now. The cost is so minimal (one could hack up a basic one in only a few hours as an average programmer... forget about what a few people could do in a few weeks).

Well, the music and movie industry is one of the most hostile to change and last to embrace new marketing ideas amongst the big industries. That attitude has to bleed to the bigger artists also.

One of the great losers in this are tv-series'. Right now the studioes would make a mint by letting people stream/download new episodes of series' as they are aired in whatever country they are shown, for a modest $2/1 fee. People are downloading the new episodes and will keep doing that until there is another way to see them apart from waiting for a couple of years for some channel to MAYBE pick up the series, or buying an insanely expensive dvd-set you really don't even want to have. Again, having to wait for it more than a year.

On the other hand, the television companies might have something to say about this business model.
 
2004-12-27 07:29:46 PM  
As a protest to Corporate Greediness and our wasteful consumerism, I am only going to listen to music that I find in dumpsters behind HMV and Virgin stores.

Anyone want to share half my sandwich?
 
2004-12-27 07:30:02 PM  
Supper time. I'm out.

[image from img.fark.com too old to be available] I'm listening to a band called The Shins. Go buy their album!
 
2004-12-27 07:32:32 PM  
Based on the number of people who have stated they haven't bought an album in so many years, I can see how the bands are making more money.
 
2004-12-27 07:32:36 PM  
I would like to taket his moment to thank Apple for iTunes and their music store.

Thank you Apple.
 
2004-12-27 07:35:12 PM  
pshaw:

Supper time. I'm out.

I'm listening to a band called The Shins. Go buy their album!


Last year called, they want there album back.

/joking with you.
//The Shins are great.
 
2004-12-27 07:35:19 PM  
It's just one band, but the dudes in Reel Big Fish told me they encourage downloading because it's their constant touring that makes them money - not sales.
 
2004-12-27 07:50:27 PM  
Tell that to Backstreet Boys.
 
2004-12-27 07:53:09 PM  
pshaw:

$340,000 of total profit for the sale and production of one platnium album. If $340,000 is "very little" for you, then I'm a starving artist. Can you feed me?

Record company gets a BIG cut of that. Divide thre rest between the band members. This has to last them as long as it takes for the money from their next album to go platinum. (Good luck) The numbers not so big now, is it?
 
2004-12-27 07:54:47 PM  
Where do I sign up to be in the "No CDs til the RIAA is gone" club?

Suing customers is probably in the top 10 of horrible business moves. I won't go into how they've ruined FM radio.

Has anyone tried to choke down the top 40 recently? The "songs" on there prove there never was a God.
 
2004-12-27 07:54:52 PM  
I know exactly how they feel, because smaller bands are (rightully) reluctant to sign with big labels, because the big labels rob them. (FARK THE RIAA!)

I actually don't get any music that way, but I do preview movies that I've downloaded, and if they're good enough, I then buy them.

The thing with me is, I'm hearing impaired, so I don't catch a lot of whats being said; on the other hand, if it has a lot of cool action sequences, that's good too.

Anyway, I did this with Walking Tall and decided it sucked and i wasn't going to buy it. However, I did it with Eurotrip and immediately ordered it after I watched the movie a half a dozen times. Then when i buy it I can click on the CC and find all the language i've been missing.
 
2004-12-27 07:55:39 PM  
Good, now can the RIAA STFU already?
 
2004-12-27 07:59:29 PM  
It's the printing press, folks. We're not going to UN-invent the printing press just because a few scribes lost some of their income. Technology evolves. Evolve with it or risk becoming as irrelevant as a scribe.
 
2004-12-27 07:59:37 PM  
You mean RIAA lied to us?

Unpossible!

/sarcasm.

The whole reason the music industry is against an online business model has more to do with reportable income than intellectual property. They just don't want an independantly verifiable credit trail that any accountant could follow with his eyes closed....
 
2004-12-27 08:05:00 PM  
i have no guilt over downloading music as i believe its there for everyone no matter how much business is involved. most bands are just happy to make music. everyone wants to make a buck off something they enjoy doing, obviously, but the second you start making music strictly for the money then its over. anyway, as cliched as an argument as this is: the bands make most of their cash on touring anyway and as such, most bands who are really well known have a fulltime job when the amps and lights go off.

maybe i'm a hopeless romantic when it comes to this debate as i see this as a musician with no deal who just wants to be heard but you should really be doing it for "the love of the game" no matter what.


Nah, you're not a hopeless romantic. You're just a complete moron.

It's there for everyone?? Here's a clue: no, it's not. "Everyone" did not make the music. "Everyone" did not invest time and money in crafting the album. It's there for people who want to pay what's being asked for it. You don't want to pay for the CD? Here's an idea: don't buy it. But don't complain that music should be free because of some idealistic obligation artists have to provide talentless consumers entertainment. Artists have as much right to make money as worthless office drones do.

If you're some stupid 9-5 lackey who gets assigned to write a report, one that might make or break your career, and I come along and steal it, you'd be pretty ticked off. But why? I mean, it's not like you *own* it. It's just thoughts and ideas. You can't own those, right? They should belong to everybody.

Every time one of these anti-RIAA threads comes out, it just ends up being a bunch of pathetic low-life thieves trying to justify their complete asshattery. Stealing is stealing, you farks. That's all there is to it. Justify it any way you want, that's what it will always boil down to. If you're comfortable being some asshat thief and downloading all your music, more power to you. I will always hold you in the deepest contempt, and will applaud heartily every time another of you goes down in front-page flames.
 
2004-12-27 08:08:35 PM  
weaver95:

actually curious, what aspects of the credit trail would be easier to follow online? That it would be easy to track how many downloads were taken from one of your servers, and do the math to see how much profit is in it? Because I can think of a few work arounds just sittin' and spittin'.

What am I missing?
 
2004-12-27 08:13:49 PM  
But U2 still sucks.
 
2004-12-27 08:14:44 PM  
Pocket Ninja:

Every time one of these anti-RIAA threads comes out, it just ends up being a bunch of pathetic low-life thieves trying to justify their complete asshattery. Stealing is stealing, you farks. That's all there is to it. Justify it any way you want, that's what it will always boil down to. If you're comfortable being some asshat thief and downloading all your music, more power to you. I will always hold you in the deepest contempt, and will applaud heartily every time another of you goes down in front-page flames.

So what's the answer? Stuffing the genie back in the bottle?
 
2004-12-27 08:16:34 PM  
Pocket Ninja:

What if people donated to the artist the approximate proportion of the CD price that actually would go to the artist? Would you be down with that?

I just don't think intellectual property is as black and white as you try to make things. What if I pay for satellite radio, and then record songs from it? Am I still a thief? Or is it only if I trade them with my friends? With strangers? Aquaintences?

Or are you one of those people who thinks everyone who goes 5 miles per hour over the posted limit should be drug out in the street and shot?
 
2004-12-27 08:18:03 PM  
And while I'm on the subject, why can't we get 'compulsory licensing' to work?

I would happily pay $10/month to download music with a reasonable limit, just as long as I did not have any restrictions on what I could do with it.
 
2004-12-27 08:20:49 PM  
werekoala:

Or are you one of those people who thinks everyone who goes 5 miles per hour over the posted limit should be drug out in the street and shot?

The world would be a lonely place if that happened.
 
2004-12-27 08:23:31 PM  
Kaymon: The numbers not so big now, is it?

Please read rest of thread (plus the math involved to achieve that figure) before treating fellow TFer with pious superiority.
 
2004-12-27 08:26:57 PM  
Pocket Ninja: Every time one of these anti-RIAA threads comes out, it just ends up being a bunch of pathetic low-life thieves trying to justify their complete asshattery. Stealing is stealing, you farks. That's all there is to it. Justify it any way you want, that's what it will always boil down to. If you're comfortable being some asshat thief and downloading all your music, more power to you.

Well, I do download all the new music I listen to nowadays.

Then, if I like it, I pay for it by buying the cd. Well, unless it's copy-protected, in which case I leave it in the shelf, stop listening to the mp3's and biatch about it to the record shop clerk, the band and the label. Usually the first one agrees with me wholeheartedly, the latter often a bit guardedly and the third one doesn't answer the complaint. The ironic thing is that I know plenty of people who leave the copy-protected cd's on the shelf and continue listening to the music anyway. What a farking great way for the label to piss off a paying customer and lose money.

...and yeah, Biledriver with his "it's there for everybody" is a complete back-birth.
 
2004-12-27 08:28:17 PM  
[image from weboverlord.net too old to be available]
//sort of related
/link
 
2004-12-27 08:30:15 PM  
as far as the stealing is concearned, it's more of a gray area that you'd imagine. free-use act provides the rights to the owner (consumer) to freely copy and play the property on any media device of his desires. he can also copy a cd to a cassette tape and give it to a friend. the debate over the legality of p2p sharing was in fact that it was "technically legal" until the riaa put new laws into place.. the digital millinium copyright act. back then, copying a cassette and giving it out was slow, and tending to generate more revenue cause you have a first hand word of mouth recommendation to check out the music. p2p does the same thing, but fast and cheap and with no ahra royalty raxes
 
2004-12-27 08:32:27 PM  
Oh great. Now the RIAA is going to go after these musicians for their 93% of the gross CD sales.
 
2004-12-27 08:36:43 PM  
Pocket Ninja

Every time one of these anti-RIAA threads comes out, it just ends up being a bunch of pathetic low-life thieves trying to justify their complete asshattery. Stealing is stealing, you farks. That's all there is to it. Justify it any way you want, that's what it will always boil down to. If you're comfortable being some asshat thief and downloading all your music, more power to you. I will always hold you in the deepest contempt, and will applaud heartily every time another of you goes down in front-page flames.

Just out of curiosity. I'm Canadian. I procur most of my music either by DLing it, or by ripping it. Am I a thief? Please note, the Canadian legal system ruled this year that Canadians have the right to file share (and has ruled in the past that we are entitled to rip CDs).
 
2004-12-27 08:53:24 PM  
I only use P2P for pr0n.
 
2004-12-27 08:55:10 PM  
What a load. Advertisment only works properly when you impose it on people, like when you shove it in the middle of a product that they actually want.
 
2004-12-27 09:03:12 PM  
pshaw:

In brief, if the average album cost $16.98 at retail price, then $1.99 will find it's way back to the artist's pocket to split amongst the band. It looks like my estimation is a lot less than the real amount.

You didn't read far enough down the page. The $1.99 doesn't take into account recoupable costs (many of which are not money into the artist's pocket, but are promotional and production costs).
 
2004-12-27 09:07:29 PM  
pshaw:

But to have that source of income evaporate due to 15 lines of Python code is a massive blow to major artist.

There hasn't been any causative link established between P2P filesharing and an increase/decrease in music sales.
 
2004-12-27 09:13:41 PM  
One more thing:

I don't d/l or share music online. I already own the music I like, and I can't say that I've heard much come out recently that I do like.

However, I could give a shiat less if the RIAA collapses. People talk like it will be the end of music. Bullshiat. People made music for free in the past, they're making it for free now, and they'll continue to make it for free in the future.

The good artists play because they love playing.
 
2004-12-27 09:16:04 PM  
I bought more music when Napster was legal.

Hundreds of dollars in music.

Now that I am a criminal for converting my favorite music to MP3 I will no longer buy CD's.
 
2004-12-27 09:23:40 PM  
CD Economics 101
Taken from : http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Advance: $ 250,000
Manager's cut: $ 37,500
Legal fees: $ 10,000
Recording Budget: $ 150,000
Producer's advance: $ 50,000
Studio fee: $ 52,500
Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000
Recording tape: $ 8,000
Equipment rental: $ 5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000
Catering: $ 3,000
Mastering: $ 10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000
Video budget: $ 30,000
Cameras: $ 8,000
Crew: $ 5,000
Processing and transfers: $ 3,000
Off-line: $ 2,000
On-line editing: $ 3,000
Catering: $ 1,000
Stage and construction: $ 3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000
Director's fee: $ 3,000
Album Artwork: $ 5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000
Band fund: $ 15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000
New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
Bus: $ 25,000
Crew [3]: $ 7,500
Food and per diems: $ 7,875
Fuel: $ 3,000
Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
Wardrobe: $ 1,000
Promotion: $ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000
Agent's cut: $ 7,500
Manager's cut: $ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]:
$ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:
$ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
Net royalty: $ -14,000

----------------------------------------------------------------------​-------- --
Record company income:


Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 =
$1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
Gross profit: $ 7l0,000

----------------------------------------------------------------------​-------- --
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.


Record company: $ 710,000
Producer: $ 90,000
Manager: $ 51,000
Studio: $ 52,500
Previous label: $ 50,000
Agent: $ 7,500
Lawyer: $ 12,000
Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25
 
2004-12-27 09:25:47 PM  
P2P is the best promotion music ever had. You don't even have to payola P2P to get on it. You do with the radio. The RIAA wants to kill P2P because they don't control it. Liberating artists would destroy thir power. Read more at www.dontbuycds.org
 
2004-12-27 09:29:52 PM  
I would happily pay $10/month to download music with a reasonable limit, just as long as I did not have any restrictions on what I could do with it.


then you might want to visit emusic, AndrewGK. It's 9.99 per month and you get 40 downloads. They may not have many "name" acts, but there is an absolutely fascinating variety. I've found some amazingly cool groups and genres on it (Theivery Corp, for one).
 
2004-12-27 09:44:41 PM  

FrankGecko Well, the music and movie industry is one of the most hostile to change and last to embrace new marketing ideas amongst the big industries. That attitude has to bleed to the bigger artists also.

Then again, some said the US was hostile to change for not becoming communist when that fad was becoming popular... it ends up Communism, while looking like a utopia (the math even worked)... didn't quite work out in reality. The human flaw of greed made it ineffective, while in theory it was the ideal.

One of the great losers in this are tv-series'. Right now the studioes would make a mint by letting people stream/download new episodes of series' as they are aired in whatever country they are shown, for a modest $2/1 fee. People are downloading the new episodes and will keep doing that until there is another way to see them apart from waiting for a couple of years for some channel to MAYBE pick up the series, or buying an insanely expensive dvd-set you really don't even want to have. Again, having to wait for it more than a year.

Problem here is simply bandwidth. For purchase people want high quality (people even blast Apple for iTunes being low quality). For that quality video... bandwidth, hardware, and development costs would make the cost well beyond a few bucks...

then you have to factor in the consumer waiting for that download.

Or for a few extra bucks, pluckd own the cash for the DVD, and it's effort free.

That is why it hasn't taken off yet... I've got good access to the industry... I know what's going on there. I won't say more on that.

The economics just doesn't work. People won't pay unless there's a benefit. For most people, they would save by buying the DVD.


The real solution here is for cheaper DVD manufacturing. Get away from these box sets, and move to cheap AOL style distribution. Order online and get the DVD of the episode in a thin piece of cardboard packaging. No frills menu's... just the video. It would be cheaper.

Video has a long way to go on the internet. Remember a good chunk of the US is still on dialup. And onlya limited portion of those using broadband even feel comfortable buying something online.

On the other hand, the television companies might have something to say about this business model.

As long as it's not available before it airs... I highly doubt that.

Companies who buy stuff in syndication (such as TBS) may care.... but then again, it just lowers the value of the show in syndication... so they will pay less, for something of lower value.

Then again, perhaps they would enter a deal where they do the distro of the media, as well as show it in syndication (watch this episode... like it? buy it online now!).


Problem with video is it's way to costly for the quality. They would need to sell in massive quantity online to just break even... there isn't enough of a market for that to even be possible... much less reasonable.

Give it a few years... when video compression improves a bit more, and bandwidth becomes better... things will change quickly.
 
2004-12-27 10:01:17 PM  
Since the RIAA has been acting like a tantruming 2 year old over filesharing, i wont buy any more albums. I get my music on ebay or half.com now after i download it to see if its any good.
 
2004-12-27 10:05:46 PM  
DIGITALgimpus

Then again, some said the US was hostile to change for not becoming communist when that fad was becoming popular... it ends up Communism, while looking like a utopia (the math even worked)... didn't quite work out in reality. The human flaw of greed made it ineffective, while in theory it was the ideal.

Warning, this is very off topic.

You know I've never heard anyone say that in my life. Particularly because you can't change to Communism. At least not in the same way that music companies can embrace P2P (making this a very strange analogy).

Communism is defined as an economic system wherein the means of production are owned by the state, and which is brought about by violent revolution. In other words, one of it's most important tenets is that you can't vote it in, and you can't switch to it democratically.

To add to it, all examples of failed Communist countries also happen to have been Totalitarian states that changed to Authoritarian states. The prime distinguishing feature between the two is a charismatic leader. Turns out that authoritarian states, lacking as they are of a charismatic leader, are less stable than Totalitarian states.

Now, I'd also like you to notice when these Communist states fell. That's right, after the switch.

So I propose that Communism isn't at fault, but rather authoritarianism is. And I think the widly succesful Socialist states of this world go a long way to proving that.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report