A Seldom seen side of the copyright debate....

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS

09/19/2005 03:35:36 PM · #1

Here is a side you don't get to see a lot of times in the whole copyright/copy-protection debate:

A different viewpoint

Now mind you, it's not about "downloading" music but about the right to freely use purchased music however you please. Numerous musicians have expressed this view. I think it quite interesting seeing the artists tell the common people how to "burn" their CD.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/19/2005 03:44:33 PM · #2

The reality is the vast majority of musicians are probably helped by burning, downloading, or whatever other legal or illegal method of dispersing their songs there is. These days a typical contract has an up front signing "advance" and then a royalty. The vast majority of musicians never see a dime from royalty because of "creative accounting" by the record companies. So musicians either make their money from the signing amount, or from concert sales (which they get the lion's share compared to the record co.). When 100,000 kids download their hit single on Kazaa it probably makes them more likely to want to go to the concert which is one of the few avenues for the money to get to the musician directly...

This is my understanding at least...people are welcome to correct me. A few of the megamusicians have enough power to actually see royalties. (ie. the U2s and Madonnas of the world)

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM

09/19/2005 03:56:52 PM · #3

Yup...

(And as for concerts, that's because it's run by BMI/ASCAP/SESAC and the performance rights collection agencies.)

Maybe we should simply turn over the "royalty management rights" to those companies which tend to be much more fair to the artists.

Message edited by author 2005-09-19 15:57:07.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

09/19/2005 04:11:54 PM · #4

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The vast majority of musicians never see a dime from royalty because of "creative accounting" by the record companies.

it's probably an exception, but i read an interview with one of the pet shop boys who said he was still getting about 150 grand a year in royalties for 'west end girls'. i guess it's like anything else, some people make money while most people just spend it...

09/19/2005 04:25:24 PM · #5

A "lot" depended on the contract.

I had a friend who acted in a GM car commercial. His friend wrote the contract. But unbeknownst to him wrote it with a per play addendum. Well what was supposed to be a limited circulation wound up being re-used in several markets around the world.

The result was for 8 yrs he received checks and I think he made like over $100,000 from it.

Also, those artists that were signed to smaller more independent labels but who happened to make it past the BIG LABELS radio payola crud and got airplay and became a hit often received much more. And what most people do not realize is that every time you walk into a department store or restauraunt and hear music playing, etc. They are paying royalties for that.

For instance, the "Monkees" song "Believer" got re-popularized by the movie "Shrek". The end result is that whoever owned the royalties to that track probably received a windfall. In fact, they probably made more money in the past 5 yrs than the first 25 yrs.

But RIAA writes clauses into contracts, and they seem harmless. And in many cases they are. But over 10 - 20 yrs RIAA changes the meaning of the term by edging it a bit more and more. That's why they tried to steal the royalties from all the artists by claiming the music was all "works for hire" and thus the record labels were the real owners.

That wasn't an over-night idea. That was probably a plot very long in the making. And had it been a different judge they quite possibly might have won their case.

- The Saj