RIAA Math: Sell 1 Million Albums, Still Owe $500k 355
An anonymous reader writes "For all the complaints from the RIAA about 'pirates,' who are the real pirates in this scenario? Through a variety of contractual tricks, it's nearly impossible for artists signed to major labels to get paid. The article and video detail how an artist who thinks he's getting a 10% royalty is actually getting closer to 2.5% through various tricks placed in the contract. The labels, then, end up with 97.5% of the gross revenue, and anything they 'spend' on the artist continues to come out of the royalties, not the labels' cut."
Shysters all (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I say fuck the MAFIAA.
-uso.
Re:Shysters all (Score:4, Funny)
This is why I say fuck the MAFIAA.
-uso.
I wouldn't fuck them with your dick !
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When Oink Pink Palace died, someone posted a REALLY good article about the subject, a must read really:
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html [demonbaby.com]
Re:Shysters all (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that weve seen similar stories for years (hollywood accounting, unfair contracts, better off going alone), 2 questions spring to mind:
1) Surely enough people have been burned to set up a class action lawsuit and /or lobbying for new regulation/legislation towards Hollywood / the recording industry for their accounting practices; Im generally gun-shy of unnecessary regulation but this seems to be an area where audits would be helpful, and the odd multi-million-dollar judgement might not hurt either
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them? I sympathize if the contracts are simply not being honored, but if it continues to happen and people continue to sign the contracts, my sympathy begins to wane. I do NOT want to get into a situation where contracts are no longer enforceable because of legislation protect people from sneaky contracts; people DO bear responsibility for contracts that they sign if they are upheld to the letter of the contract.
Articles like this make me really nervous because they may have a valid point, but I am terribly worried about the results of overambitious and overreacting legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there's the factor that, right now, to make it big, you have to do it through the established system - all major media is controlled by the established system. So, if your goal is to make it big...
Re: (Score:2)
Just a dumb idea... Get musicians, authors, artists, coders, and other digital work creators to join a new Digital.coop cooperative designed to eliminate the middle man. Users pay $5 to join, but then any profits are split between users and the artists. It gets around Apple's agency model problem, so you save 30% on all digital stuff right there. I write more about the idea at Ebooks.coop.
Re:Shysters all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shysters all (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey there Mr. Indielabel that's a nice little website you have there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it.
Oh, by the way, it sounds like one of the artists on your little label wrote a song that sounds similar to one of our millions of copyrighted songs, so we're suing you for $1,000,000,000 right after the Division of Homeland Security shuts down your website for copyright infringement and the SWAT team kicks down your door.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, ClearChannel and company own 98% of the internet?
Last I checked, getting on Pandora, Grooveshark, GoogleAds, etc didnt require you to be signed on with ANYONE. Get on pandora and all of a sudden you have a lot of exposure to your very demographic.
Re: (Score:3)
It has been possible to make a career as a musician. Not as a get-rich-quick scheme, but by being talented, working hard, and all that other classic stuff. Traveling even regionally makes it hard to hold down a regular job, and playing only local gigs saturates your market. Even your avid fans don't want to see you every week.
As with any profession, there's a difference in quality between somebody who plays the occasional bar gig and a band who can really take the time to perfect their stagecraft. Part
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the RIAA still collects royalties from radios, pubs etc, for music by artists who don't belong to them. The amount of jumping through hoops to opt out is rarely worth the money you save. And they could sue you into ground before you can prove your innocence.
Re:Shysters all (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a whole hell of a lot of people who want to make it big big! BIG!!. Just look at all the people who are waiting for their big break in Hollywood while waiting tables or washing cars - there are literally a million people jockying for those few '10 Million a picture' jobs, and 99.something % of them have no chance at all by any objective measure. A person who gets a screen credit in a single motion picture during their acting career is in the top 1% of screen actors guild members. People most viewers think of as middle of the line actors (i.e. Whoopee Goldberg), are statistically in the top 1/100th of 1% by earnings, number of films or shows they have appeared on, recognizability and similar measures.
This goes for somewhat lesser extent for pop musicians, athletes (particularly football players) and many others. There's really no point in asking If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them?, because it's like asking these same people why they took that triple dog dare and got their tongue stuck to a pole. An actor/rockstar/celebrity is either an idiot who has let his dream of being big enough to overcome the emptiness in his soul overwhelm everything else, or he has some actual understanding of the odds, some actual understanding of his own worth, and (by the time he's done a few contracts) knows that all those idiots aren't just competition, but a thing that keeps the real actors down come contract time. Any serious actor is aware that the producers can always find somebody who will do the job for a pittance just to break in. He or she is aware that the producers have a generalised contempt for the actors they deal with that seems fundamental to their business models, and that he or she has to negotiate every deal through that. He or she swiftly hires an agent to handle that part.
Re: (Score:2)
If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them?
People want to be signed by a big label so bad, they'll do anything to get that contract. Often, they won't even hire an independent lawyer or will ignore the legal advice they're given, because they want to be signed so bad. The label knows that even if this group turns it down, there are 20 more waiting in the wings, itching for that contract. You either accept it or it goes to the next group.
It's just like the people you see on Jerry Springer or whatever. They don't care that they look like idiots, th
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people sign up? You can lead a pretty good rockstar lifestyle for a few years if you sign up with the RIAA, but:
a) It's not all S&D&R&R - expect a lot of mundane days, long hours, jetlag, etc.
b) The letdown when they move on to the next great thing can be hard.
c) There's a possibility that when it's all over you owe *them* money, not the other way around - keep one eye on the accounts!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shysters all (Score:5, Insightful)
If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them?
Lets say 95% of people are smart enough not to sign one. If you work for a record company, it means you only sign up people who fall in that 5% category. The pool of people who could actually make money for them will always be large enough that they can afford to ignore the rest.
And it gets worse. Let's say I started a record company today, and I genuinely want to do right by my artists. If I don't employ the same money squeezing tactics that the existing labels do, then my margins suffer and the only way to succeed is to have a much higher success/flop ratio with the acts I sign than everyone else. And that's not trivial to pull off.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you your logic, you would sign the other 95% and make more money. The fact of the matter is that 'smart' has nothing to do. It's about experience, desire, presentation, and how poor the musician is when presented with the contract.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
well written post.
I have already been doing my part to DENY income to anyone formally attached to riaa (and mpaa as well).
buying used cd's (amazon, etc) is one way to stick it to the man, fully legally, too. not a single cent goes back to anyone connected with the industry when you buy used.
then again, if you look at amazon prices, often the new and used cd's are within a dollar or even pennies of each other. wonder how THAT happened. hmmm.
artists: the time has come to stop depending on 'art' to make a
Re: (Score:3)
artists: the time has come to stop depending on 'art' to make a living. do it because you love it
Here's the problem with that. Let's say I'm an artist, and I make good quality music/art/books/whatever, and I do it because I love it, and people want more of it. If I do it in my spare time while working another job to make a living, that's less time I have available to create art. I currently have a number of hobbies that get neglected because I just don't have the time for them. We should pay artists enough for them to live on (and maybe a little more if they're that good) so that they can spend all
Re:Shysters all (Score:5, Insightful)
With all due respect... Are you implying that you are entitled to make money with what you love doing? I assure you that's not even remotely close to how reality actually works. Most people have a day job that they either accept as "necessary" or flat out hate it. Many people, including me, used to love what they did, but the realities of the workplace and business requirements usually put a halt to that. My dad always used to say, "Find a job you love and you'll never work in your whole life". As a matter of fact, I have a corollary to that: "Find a job you love, and lose your love for it". Yes, I still love programming, fiddling with hardware (e.g. dumpster diving), helping out people with their computer problems, but it's for my own and for the people I care about. My job, is just that... a job.
What about the people who love things like D&D or simply going for a walk in the forest? Should they be able to make money of it? Sure... They should have the right to attempt that, but reality will kick your butt quickly.
My wife would love to make her money with her paintings. She's pretty good, but to make a living out of it? I'm doubtful, may happen, but only if someone rich actually fancies her art and gets her out in public.
Re: (Score:3)
With all due respect... Are you implying that you are entitled to make money with what you love doing?
No, but I believe you're entitled to an honest chance at it. And the record labels are not doing that.
Most people have a day job that they either accept as "necessary" or flat out hate it.
I fail to see what that has anything to do with anything. Shit sucks for others, so it's required to suck for you?
Re: (Score:3)
You are never entitled to anything, you have to earn it some how or let it fall in your lap ... come from a rich family, sleep with the boss, have straight A's in school, be at the right place at the right time or even get lucky.
having an honest chance is what the internet does, you post your music and video to YouTube and hope. to increase your 'honest chances' hire someone to do your video with better editing, maybe a sound guy for better production value, a good SEO for rank improvement on searches, a go
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't entitled to make money selling music, but if you sell a million CDs, you should be entitled to a decent share of the profits and not have the recording industry say "Well, that million sales album actually lost ten thousand dollars so you owe us money."
The RIAA is using Hollywood accounting (and other sleazy tactics) to keep as much money to themselves and away from the artists as possible. But they don't want you to pirate because they care so much about the artists!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is absolutely the wrong approach. By downloading or copying those songs you are reaffirming that you want their music. DO NOT BUY! DO NOT DOWNLOAD! DO NOT COPY. Avoid them altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
1) People signed a contract they didn't understand; which is understandable when some is waiving a bunch of money in your face and you don't realize that's your money they're waving at you.
2) See 1
When people are throwing things at you (Limos, recording studio time, food, nice rooms) It become very easy to forget it comes out of your cut plus most people have no real idea how much that stuff costs.
I wonder what would, happen if the musicians had to sign a piece of paper that says : This item comes out of yo
Chump Matching (Score:3)
Your comment is based on the false assumption that the music business is about selling music. Since the artists provide the music, they are entitled to the lion's share of the profits.
In reality, the music business is more of a chump matching service. The music companies match up chumps who are willing to pay for music with chumps who are willing to sign away their rights to music. Since the music companies provide the chumps, they are entitled to the lion's share of the profits.
Re:Shysters all (Score:4, Interesting)
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them?
Because while they may get ripped off on the record contract, they still get fame and recognition which allows them to make money on concert gigs.
Re:Shysters all (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely enough people have been burned to set up a class action lawsuit
They tried that in Canada. Out of $6 billion owed to artists, all they were able to get was $50 million.
If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them
Mostly because it's their only shot at stardom. They don't pick people with talent who could hack it on their own. They pick kids from podunk towns just dying to get out and be famous.
The rise of indie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The rise of indie (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike self-publishing, indie labels and self-sales/recording have never had the same stigma of lack of legitimacy. However, I think there is still an impression, even among the artists, that getting signed to a major label is what "success" means. It might be due to confusion in that success and slavery both start with an 's'.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier. Distributing and advertising your album yourself is hard work that pays off but if someone goes "I'm an artist, I'm above such worldly matters" they sign up to let someone else take care of that and get screwed for it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply a myth. Unless you are one of the lucky few that gets pushed to the front by your label, you will likely need to do your own marketing anyways. This also applies to other things like books. The gatekeeper system is not all that it is cracked up to be.
Also the bands that tend to make it are the ones that have some industry saavy and a bit of a clue. It takes a lot to stick out from the crowd and making your own opportunities can be of considerable benefit. You can't just wait for A&R men t
Re:The rise of indie (Score:5, Informative)
- The MafiAA control the booking for 99% of the performance venues that seat more than 50 people. Get yourself to a large enough following, and you'll have problems. Piss off the MafiAA by being independent too long and they'll have you blackballed from performance venues.
- The MafiAA control the vast, vast majority of sound studios. Want to rent time and the equipment to record your album? Their response will be "fuck you, you're not under contract, get lost till someone signs you."
- Likewise, the vast majority of record producers, sound mixers, etc... are under MafiAA control.
- The MafiAA control the "top 40" lists and radio playback. Your music will never get onto the radio or onto satellite radio without them, let alone onto the pre-show movie screener reels or any other of the "combined marketing" channels. And like it or not, that is STILL how most people get exposed to new music these days.
I have several friends who've gone the indie route. Some of whom are merely good, one of whom is a fucking virtuoso, can pick up almost any instrument and give a good accounting, is phenomenal on the guitar, and has a killer instinct for writing earworms. The most he's ever been able to earn in a year, despite these talents, is about $20k - not bad for a part-time gig, but when he didn't have a day job, making a living as an indie was a matter of Just Barely Breaking Even month to month living in the crappiest, cheapest possible apartment and scheduling band practices at - you guessed it - the drummer's garage.
Note I don't say he wasn't being paid well, by most standards, for the gigs (and they had a decent number). But once you count in fuel costs, equipment costs, instrument maintenance, and split the remainder four or five ways, the money for "indie" bands to perform isn't really all that much at all.
Re: (Score:2)
How about giving the name of that virtuoso? Always good to find new things to listen to.
Re:The rise of indie (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet even with all those roadblocks you're likely getting more money by staying independent than by selling yourself to the labels and living in slavery. Only the overproduced stars that are pretty much a disposable cog in the music industry and chosen to be advertised big get big money to keep the dream of being a rock star alive and musicians willing to sign up despite getting screwed.
Re:The rise of indie (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet even with all those roadblocks you're likely getting more money by staying independent than by selling yourself to the labels and living in slavery. Only the overproduced stars that are pretty much a disposable cog in the music industry and chosen to be advertised big get big money to keep the dream of being a rock star alive and musicians willing to sign up despite getting screwed.
Another consideration is that when you have a contract you have a budget, even if you're not taking home a hefty salary. I have one friend who is a genuine rock star, and another who is independent (and really good: he's won Guitar Magazine's 'best guitarist in the world' annual competition once.) They both make about the same amount of money from playing music, which is to say not very much, at all. However, the genuine rock star gets flown to Europe to perform, and their band travels around the US in enormous comfortable buses and has hotels everywhere they stay, whereas the independent guy drives around the US in an old beat-up van and stays in my basement for all the gigs he does in this state. Comfortably poor beats uncomfortably poor, and the record companies are willing to keep you in comfortable servitude to keep you making music for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The rise of indie (Score:4, Insightful)
- The MafiAA control the booking for 99% of the performance venues that seat more than 50 people. Get yourself to a large enough following, and you'll have problems. Piss off the MafiAA by being independent too long and they'll have you blackballed from performance venues.
Indeed. This is why artists such as Dispatch were never able to play venues such as Madison Square Garden [wikimedia.org], and were unable to get more than a few people [wikimedia.org] at their show at the Hatch Memorial Shell.
Oh. Maybe not...
Re:The rise of indie (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Dispatch fan. I have a bunch of their albums on CD, and went to see them at the Garden when I lived in Alabama.
I can't speak to whether or not the MAFIAA controls booking in 99% of the large venues or not. But when Dispatch played at Madison Square Garden they had already contracted with a major label to distribute their old albums. That may or may not have had anything to do with them being able to book three consecutive days of sold out shows there.
Re: (Score:2)
Advise: your sig is empty, why not putting your virtuoso's page on your sig? They do have a page, don't they? Even a MySpace (or should I say My____ :P) will do, as long as their songs are being heard. Also, if they have there some means to receive cash, they can, as people here say, at least beat inflation.
Re: (Score:3)
No they do not own 90% of the venue over 50.
We have the internet, musician can distribute. It can take longer, but the pay off is higher.
The RIAA is losing control. Can the 'virtuoso' write catchy music? if not then he will never make big dollars.
I would like to point out the that 20K is 20K more then he would make with the RIAA. The article is about selling a million and STILL OWING money.
Seem like what your friend needs is a good manager. Someone who know technology and can get music out there and on iTun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry it's just... this has been covered ad nauseum.
This kind of crap happened to Courtney Love [techdirt.com]. (Original Salon story here [salon.com].
Happened to TLC.
Happened to Lyle Lovett.
Happened to Janis Ian.
Has happened to almost every goddamn band to walk the face of the earth, with the exception of maybe the "chosen few" like Metallica (who are too fucking brain-dead to check if they are getting ripped off)... and even those usually make the vast majority of their money not from their music, but from endorsement contracts
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase is "antitrust conspiracy." And Major League Baseball has a specific, congressionally-approved exemption against same.
The MafiAA just gets away with it anyways because they have certain congressional stooges in their pocket. What, you didn't think the Sonny Bono Rape The Public Copyright Act just came out of nowhere did you?
Re:The rise of indie (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With the ability to distribute online so easily these days, I don't know why artists even bother with major labels anymore.
Publishing != Marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any non-established artist think they could suddenly market themselves? Why would anybody give them a loan? Why would this be more appealing than a contract with the RIAA that says "We'll handle that for you, you focus on being good at what you do"?
Re: (Score:2)
Please read my posts in their entirety instead of picking out the soundbites that you want to rip apart.
Take your own advice. My questions were specifically about what you said. Now, here are the questions you still haven't satisfactorily answered:
- Why would any non-established artist think they could suddenly market themselves?
- Why would anybody give them a loan?
- Why would this be more appealing than a contract with the RIAA that says "We'll handle that for you, you focus on being good at what you do"?
So could you please read my questions in their entirety instead of picking out the soundbites that you want to rip apart?
Re: (Score:2)
With the ability to distribute online so easily these days, I don't know why artists even bother with major labels anymore. I'm sure with a little investment even the smallest artist can attain a decent marketing campaign. Word of mouth and social networks are a wealth of free publicity as well.
Tell you what, why don't you ring up a few concert venues and get yourself booked into them? Get yourself into the big online music stores - iTunes and Amazon would be a good start, get airplay on some major radio stations, get your music into adverts and in TV shows. Call up the agent for a reasonably well-known musician you admire and ask if they'd be interested in a supporting act for their next tour.
Setting up a website is relatively easy, but if you think that all you need is a website and some musical
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually started to see/hear this. On my local radio, there's an ad to download what I would call a "painfully indie" track from iTunes. So, while I have my doubts as to the success of this particular campaign, it's interesting to watch the tide turn.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't sign it (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is not fully to blame here. If I don't like a work contract I get it changed or walk away. If someone is too eager to be famous to take the time and negotiate I can hardly feel sorry for them.
Re:Don't sign it (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree.
If you don't like the contract, don't sign it.
If you don't like the contract someone else has signed, don't buy their music.
If you want to make a statement, go without . Nothing gets my back up more than the people here on Slashdot who says "this has pushed me to piracy" - grow a pair and go without if you aren't willing to pay for it otherwise you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Yes, the RIAA and MPAA have onerous terms and conditions, if you don't like them then find something you do agree with and support that.
Re: (Score:2)
Except your solution doesn't actually fix anything. I fact, in a lot of ways it hurts.
Download music that someone else is illegally distributing is the only way to give information the the artist(how many poeple like the music) and to the RIAA (You suck).
This informs the parties that the bands quality is not the issue.
"then find something you do agree with and support that."
I ALSO do that.
How I am supposed to know the details of contracts I'm not involved with I'll never know.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I agree that the contracts are shady. However, I've known about "hollywood accounting" for years, is it really safe to assume that these artists are really THAT stupid that they don't know there is shadyness, and find out what it is, before they sign?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Most of the time at work and when driving for more that 10 min. I have Pandora streaming. I hear a lot of bands that I'd have never heard before. Then I often (gasp) buy their music later.
This is why I don't understand why the "music industry" is so against streaming services. It's a hell of a way to get the acts they're not pushing sales up without taking air time away from their golden chi
Re:Don't sign it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You as contractor have a bargaining position. You can afford to walk away. Most artists cannot afford this, simply because in most cases the alternatives are just as bad or worse.
What alternatives? How are they worse? Is the artist going to get kicked in the head for not signing or will they just have to rely on themselves for marketing?
We live in an age where musicians don't even need instruments to make music anymore! Don't tell me artists can't afford to walk away from a contract they don't agree with; they always have a choice, even if it means paying the bills by working at Starbucks until they succeed on their own terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, anyone could go work at Starbucks but that's not what this is about is it? The difference is that anyone with an "ordinary" job will have plenty of other companies that can offer him a similar job at better terms. In the music industry, all major labels will screw you over. In that section of the market, there aren't any alternatives. Indie labels are fine and everything, but possibly usually not capable of getting you a cha
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a perfect legitimate thing to say. If you don't like the terms of the contract, then do it yourself.
The old chart methods have become so useless they might as well be dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I don't like a work contract I get it changed or walk away.
Now imagine that the "work contract" includes a no-compete clause that you can't look for other employment or even strike out on your own. One way the MafiAA keeps "artists" in limbo is by forever delaying an album. They sign you to a 4 record deal? Three records down, you're a fairly popular band, working on the fourth... they'll start exercising a "discretion clause" to keep sending it back and disapproving it over and over and over until you f
Re: (Score:3)
One would hope the lawyer they have give the contract (at least) a once over has at least five minutes of experience with the usual traps.
Re: (Score:2)
A problem is that these contracts are likely so obfuscated that you'd need a lawyer to even notice you're about to get fucked six ways to Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not that simple. From what I remember reading of this (which, granted, was at least five years ago, so perhaps...HOPEFULLY...some of this has changed), the recording industry is set up to shaft recording artists upon entry.
Let me put it this way - I am an agented author. So, when I deal with the publishers, I have an agent on my side who will play hardball if she sees the need. My agent works for me - she gets a cut of what I receive, so it is in her best interest to ensure that I get the best
Re: (Score:2)
"It's easy to maintain your integrity when no one is offering to buy it out."
- Marc Maron
When your band has been eating pigeons and ramen noodles 3 meals a day, and you're offered a record contract, it's really hard not to buy into it.
RTFA much? (Score:2)
but it also delves into some of the sneakier aspects of record label contracts with musicians -- things that many musicians simply won't know about or understand when they sign their contract.
Musicians are musicians, not lawyers. I'm pretty sure they have to hire someone to read these things and explain them to them. Let's face it, people DO get famous and rich even by signing with the RIAA. No, I think the RIAA is to blame here. Just because someone gets conned doesn't mean they deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
When a single organization controls the distribution channels, you're screwed. You don't have to sign the contract, but you don't have an alternative employer.
Ever tried to work in a strongly union state without being in the union? Ain't happening.
Re: (Score:2)
You are failing to realize that the ball is in the recording industry's park, and the potential artist has no other real options.
How about get a day job? You make it sound like artists are homeless and destitute. Perhaps they are, as the saying goes, 'starving' but there is always another job out there. It may not be as glamorous as a record deal but there is still a choice to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but many times these bands are just so ready to sign to a major label, they'll sign whatever heaps of fine print the label puts in front of them. Do you always read through everything you sign?
When it concerns my career, yes. The moment you put your signature on a document you lose all bargaining power so taking those five or ten minutes to read what you're getting into when you can still back out really pays off.
Re: (Score:2)
5 or 10 minutes? not for those contracts. Hell, you need to pay a lawyer and it will take them an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
With a close relative who's a lawyer, you immediately have a HUGE advantage over probably 80 or 90% of the population. (I have a similar advantage, my mum's an accountant - very handy when you're just getting started in business!)
If your dad has involved you in it in some way - even if it's just filing documents or talking to you in lay terms about difficulties clients have faced - as you were growing up, I'd say that advantage has increased dramatically. You'll be amazed at what you've taken in over the ye
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the news? (Score:2)
This stuff has been known for a long time
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Informative)
True enough. Courtney Love schooled [salon.com] the RIAA years ago on this very subject.
Steve Albini Wrote About This A While Back (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood Accounting (Score:2)
Shooting themselves in their feet (Score:2)
Most of us are happy to pay artists who have done good work. Very few of of are happy to pay thieves. Those labels are the very reason that so many people happily copy movies and music.
I really do think that everyone (probably inlcuding the labels) would do better if there was more decency and respect in the business, as much more people would be willing to pay for products if the money went where it was well deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
So who signs with the RIAA ? (Score:2)
So there appears to be no reason to sign with the RIAA now that small artists are able to quickly make a profit by being independent.
The accounting should become as public as possible so that anyone who retains a lawyer to sign the RIAA contract should be advised by their lawyer not to sign the contract. If despite the public information the lawyer stills says sign then you get "paid" out of the lawyers insurance as the lawyer was not acting in your interests.
Well lets just look at the history (Score:2)
Between the 1930s and 1960s the major labels also were money laundering companies for the US mob, guess nothing has changed.
This is nothing new... (Score:2)
Hollywood's been doing this for years, they call it Hollywood Accounting. For instance, Rain Man, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Batman (1988), and Forrest Gump all lost money on paper, despite the fact that they took in HUGE amounts of money at the box office.
Why it's allowed, I have no idea. Just another sign of corruption in our regulatory bodies and government...
Re: (Score:2)
The money's in the moichandising (Score:2)
Rapmasta F-U the lunchbox, Rapmasta F-U the colouring book, Rapmasta F-U the flamethrower.
Well, t-shirt sales at concerts anyway, books, movie rights, that jazz. If you're too dumb to know that before you take an "advance" from a label, then you're going to get ripped off by a 419 scam sooner or later anyway.
They are a big thievery corporation (Score:2)
is actually getting closer to 2.5% through various tricks placed in the contract
Of course- this is just one of the reason they have armies of lawyers. And they also lobby to not give you a chance to go elsewhere. Unfortunately as far as I can tell, this has been the norm for all things publishing; also applies to book authors, not just music artists. And this "artist==poor as f**k" common perception further encourages an "2.5% nets more than I could do on my own" attitude.
If the system ever works, and these corporate asswipes start being taxed the hell out of (as they should, but they
It gets better, RIAA can't even process... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like criminal negligence to me.
Good Book on the Subject (Score:5, Interesting)
I read a very good book called "Confessions of A Record Producer" by Moses Avalon.
This book breaks down and explains the contracts involved in music production. It is quite informative. It left me with the clear impression that the labels are incredibly greedy and rapacious, but so are the producers and the artists. The only difference is that the labels have all the bargaining power.
Re: (Score:2)
It's scandalous because of the way ti's done and represented.
From a 20% breakage fee(which is based on shipping album in 1950) to constantly presenting goods as 'free'.
If artists stopped signing, the industry would change to be more accommodating. I mean, you own a venues, you need to fill it. If the industry as we know it can't offer a way to fill it, then you will find someone who can.
The industry is currently entrenched in every step, and they control it. THAT mean breaking from them will be really, real