NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, as a musician, I feel that when a band is independent of a major record label, they should be able to decide whether to release their music free to the public or not.

Actually, even a band with a major label deal should be allowed to distribute as they see fit.

I've also heard the in Ontario donloading has been legalized. I don;t know if that is true, but I thought it would add flavor to the question.

Any thoughts?

I don't download any copyrighted material because to me it's no different than stealing.

CDs have been getting a lot cheaper lately, so i'm not downloading nearly as much. (before, it was creeping up to $30 a CD...now I often get them for $10 or $15).

I typically only download obscure songs, independent music, or when i'm checking out a band I haven't heard before.

As a wannabe musician, I'm all for downloading. I've never been one to particularly care for dishing out 20 dollars US or up to 4,000 yen per CD. I'd rather see music get exposure and people come out to concerts than charge people exorbent amounts of money for a product that, 90% of the time, is uneven or not at all worth it.

I don't download any copyrighted material because to me it's no different than stealing.

Even if the creator of said material was "okay" with it?

i can't download music at the moment because of restrictions (thanks to my ISP) but i have always downloaded in a try-before-you-buy way... that is i'll download a couple of tracks from an album or by a band in general and see if i like it. if i like what i hear i'll go out and buy the album. of course i started this back in the days before there were free samples of tracks on most sites... though even today they tend to be too poor quality to really judge whether or not to get the album.

oh and now with legal album downloads at about £6 per album this pracitce makes all the more sense :)

I don't download any copyrighted material because to me it's no different than stealing.

Ditto.

Most people I know download music illegally. If bands have put their heart and soul creating their music, then they diserve that credit, despite my disagreements with big recording giants like EMI.

But if the band is OK with it, I dont have a problem.

My thoughts?

Well... Downloading should be legal. Uploading shouldn't.

The problem for me, is that I actually consider music piracy a form of geurilla warfare on current business practices & copyright laws. And as such, all pirates are my friends.

But if we rework the laws, and scrap the industry, then there's no excuse for uploading stuff. Downloading will always be ok to me, as it's damn hard to tell what's legal & what's not. Thus it must fall on the uploaders/releasers to abide by copyright laws.... The day those things are worth abiding by, that is.

So really. Up the piracy & civil disobediance

Even if the creator of said material was "okay" with it?
That would be different. Then it's not stealing it's taking something that's been offered to you.

I use the internet to try before I buy. If a CD doesn't grab me after two listens (useually just one but two's the threshold) then I delete it, otherwise I buy it. This way I have bought albums that I would not normally have purchased. Alot of the music I like isn't availiable in the shops, and when it is a music store generally isn't the best place to 'discover' new album; I prefer to listen to new stuff when I'm relaxed at home. Also the preview stuff in the stores round here only give you about twenty seconds of a track - not enough to make any sort of judgement - and that's only if the CD is on the preview system.

In summary - music download yeah.

I never buy CDs. Even before I knew of downloading music. I hated the thought of paying money for a CD which only has one or two songs I like.

And music calms me down, let's me concentrate, and let's me focus my mind when I'm dealing with something troubling.

If anything, medical music downloads should be legalized. ;)

That would be different. Then it's not stealing it's taking something that's been offered to you.
Currently, that's where you're wrong. Numerous sites etc. have been shut down & dragged to court, for making music available free of charge, with the expressed permission of the artists.
Likewise, several pirates have been nicked in spite of the artists wishes.

Copyright laws does no longer protect & benefit artists. It's just a tool used by industry, to clubber dissidents.

I don't suppose there's any way I could get around the theft argument, but to play the devil's advocate I feel obligated to point out that the RIAA was badly mishandling the market as early as 1985. I could have told you ten years ago that a machine with the ability to store songs on it + internet connection = shared songs. It's too late for the RIAA [or, for that matter, the MPAA, though I think they're making a better show of it] to jump onboard to correct this problem, because a lot of people probably already have huge logs of songs.

As an aspiring artist myself [who isn't] I've got no problem with it, and I know that when I do start recording, I'll probably want the publicity it brings. Mp3 sharing is altering that particular market to adjust earnings more towards live shows and away from recorded material, and the smart artists are the ones who understand this and plan accordingly. It's not going to be such a steady source of income anymore; in a way I kind of like it because it means in order to make it in the music industry you got to go out and play which means more gigs to go around and more chances to be heard. OAR had a national following and were headlining tours before they even had a record deal.

I always just buy the cd. It is only like 12-15 dollars. I would feel like I was stealing from my favorite bands if I downloaded thier music illegally. If they are giving it away for free sure I'd take it.

Ditto.

Most people I know download music illegally. If bands have put their heart and soul creating their music, then they diserve that credit, despite my disagreements with big recording giants like EMI.

But if the band is OK with it, I dont have a problem.

Of course you realize that in most cases on the sale of a $15 CD the band only sees between 12 and 25 cents.

Currently, that's where you're wrong. Numerous sites etc. have been shut down & dragged to court, for making music available free of charge, with the expressed permission of the artists.
Likewise, several pirates have been nicked in spite of the artists wishes.

Copyright laws does no longer protect & benefit artists. It's just a tool used by industry, to clubber dissidents.

I agree, except in the case of independent artists. We've had a song on our website that is downloadable that is also in the soundtrack of an independent film. We made sure that we retained rights to distribute, that's we're major labels usually screw the artist.

I also think it is different for people that only perform (i.e. don't write or createthe music). They deserve no royalties as they didn't do the real work.

Of course you realize that in most cases on the sale of a $15 CD the band only sees between 12 and 25 cents.

It's usually a good deal more than that.

The artists are usually charged a packaging deduction...say, 20%.

They then receive royalties on the rest. They're usually from 10-25%, sometimes less, sometimes more.

So on your average $15 CD, most artists will receive $1.20 a copy, probably more...the remainder goes to the record company.

It's usually a good deal more than that.

The artists are usually charged a packaging deduction...say, 20%.

They then receive royalties on the rest. They're usually from 10-25%, sometimes less, sometimes more.

So on your average $15 CD, most artists will receive $1.20 a copy, probably more...the remainder goes to the record company.

Many pardons...I was using a stat from a book called "Hit Men" about the payola scandals of the late 1970's early 1980's (written in 1992).

Still...if I made the music and paid for studio time and all that, I'd want more like 50%. $7.50 adds up faster that $1.20 on any day.

Many pardons...I was using a stat from a book called "Hit Men" about the payola scandals of the late 1970's early 1980's (written in 1992).

Still...if I made the music and paid for studio time and all that, I'd want more like 50%. $7.50 adds up faster that $1.20 on any day.

10% is the generally accepted minimum. Most companies would offer better royalties than that. 15-20% is probably normal. The companies pay for the studios as well, usually included in the contract (often, it's a loan, though...but not always)

Think about it, $2.40 a record (assuming a 20% royalty rate) is pretty lucrative. If your band manages to sell a million records worldwide (pretty much all international bands do), that's $2.4 million...assuming 4 people in your band, all paid equally...you've made a cool $600,000. And add in income from touring, etc...

Though a *lot* of groups do stay independent because they'd rather the full profit. It's a somewhat risky investment, though, (you have to pay for studio time without any assistance...though it's a lot cheaper than it was 20 or 30 years ago) but if you can pull it off, you can manage a decent income, as well as touring.

10% is the generally accepted minimum. Most companies would offer better royalties than that. 15-20% is probably normal. The companies pay for the studios as well, usually included in the contract (often, it's a loan, though...but not always)

Standardly a loan (ie. the advance) which is then taken from royalties

Think about it, $2.40 a record (assuming a 20% royalty rate) is pretty lucrative.

Hardly realistic, as most artists will be getting only 10% of the wholesale price, rather than the retail price, and that is before deductions for promotion and the like. So now we are looking at about 60c per CD, and from this they also have to pay their own staff (agent, manager and the like). Most large labels also pay less royalties on copies sold outside their home country... your million seller four-piece are probably looking at closer to $100,000 each now.


Most artist's major source of income isn't from actual sales, but from publishing rights and performance rights. The lesson from this is that if you are in a band, make sure you get a writing credit.

Standardly a loan (ie. the advance) which is then taken from royalties

Yes.

Hardly realistic, as most artists will be getting only 10% of the wholesale price, rather than the retail price, and that is before deductions for promotion and the like. So now we are looking at about 60c per CD, and from this they also have to pay their own staff (agent, manager and the like). Most large labels also pay less royalties on copies sold outside their home country...

Correct me if i'm wrong (I'll look this up) but i'm pretty sure royalties are given based on the retail price.

As I said, they make money via. touring as well.

Personally, as a musician, I feel that when a band is independent of a major record label, they should be able to decide whether to release their music free to the public or not.

Actually, even a band with a major label deal should be allowed to distribute as they see fit.

I've also heard the in Ontario donloading has been legalized. I don;t know if that is true, but I thought it would add flavor to the question.

Any thoughts?

If the record labels refuse to make it available to the public in any other way, make it so that the song you want cannot be purchased legally, in the normal way, then yes, downloading ought to be okay.

Old songs, like, from the 80's...I like these songs and want them. and if the record labels refuse to let go the copyrights...AND refuse to make it so that I can legally purchase the song, then screw 'em, they deserve what they get.

If they put the song out so that I can download it for a nominal fee, I'll do that before downloading free...but if they won't make it available to buy...and I can get it for free...and I want the song....fuck 'em, I'm gonna TAKE it, too!

For the kind of stuff I want, old stuff, not new release...the labels long ago made thier money on it, anyway. And if I already own the song, in casette format, why should I have to buy the song AGAIN, just because I now want it in CD format? they already made ther money off me for the song, and so...fuck 'em, I am gonna take it.

But if I haven't already legally purchased the song, in a different format...AND it is available for purchase for a nominal fee, then I will buy it. That's the right thing to do.

But it's wrong of record labels to hold onto copyrights, and then refuse to release the song so that it cannot be purchased on the market in the normal way...and then piss and moan when folks download it free. You wanna make your money on it, then you make it available. If not, piss on ya, I'm taking it...anywhere I can get it.

Okay, according to this page:

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm

and this page:

http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/money-recording.html

It's based on retail price...

As I said, they make money via. touring as well.

For a great many bands touring is essentially just a form of promotion, rather than an actual profit making exercise.

I will download whatever music I like, if I like enough music from a certain CD, I will buy it. I'm not going to waste 20-30 a CD because most of it is filler thrown around major titles.

Okay, according to this page:

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm



Who do you believe?

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/recording-contract2.htm

"The second thing to keep in mind, and this is a big one, is that the band does not get $1.50 for each CD sold. This discrepancy comes from the fact that the retail price of an album is different from the wholesale price, and many recording contracts pay based on wholesale rather than retail prices. These different calculations have a big impact on the amount of money a band can make.

It is not uncommon in the music industry (or the book industry, for that matter), for retail stores to mark up the wholesale price by as much as 80% when a CD is put on the shelf. Then there are things like coupons, rebates, promotional discounts, etc. that can carve into wholesale prices. In addition, there is the concept of a sales channel. For example, record clubs represent a different sales channel from retail record stores, and record clubs usually get their CDs at a lower wholesale price. Therefore, the band gets less money from discs sold through record clubs. Foreign sales are often treated the same way. Even discount clubs like Sam's and Costco can be different channels with lower wholesale prices.

What this means is that the royalty payment usually does not get calculated based on the $15 retail price for the CD. The royalty payment may be calculated based on a much lower wholesale price point. It depends on the contract you sign. "

For a great many bands touring is essentially just a form of promotion, rather than an actual profit making exercise.

Until they headline Ozzfest, or something. Haha.

It's the big companies and groups big enough to have the right to their own music that care about not getting an extra couple hundred thousand a year from CD sales.

It isn't how big a band is that determines whether they keep the publishing rights or not: just the type of contract that they sign. For a band which gets little airplay and is unlikely to be covered this is less of an issue than one which is media friendly.

Who do you believe?

No idea. Ugh, i'll sit down and have a read of it all tomorrow once i've had some sleep.

http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/money-recording.html

It's based on retail price...

Which includes the 'packaging deduction', which is essentially the difference between wholesale and retail price.

Google, google, google...

http://www.songstuff.com/articles.php?selected=78

"A band can expect an average of $1.00 in royalties for each full-priced ($16.98) CD sold through normal retail channels."

Down with the capitalist pig-dogs! If a band's music is good they'll still make money from concerts, and the record companies are the true evil. I think free music downloading should be completely legal. O and just in case there are any feds here, I don't illegally download music because I'm a law abiding citizen. ;) ;)

Which includes the 'packaging deduction', which is essentially the difference between wholesale and retail price.

Google, google, google...

http://www.songstuff.com/articles.php?selected=78

"A band can expect an average of $1.00 in royalties for each full-priced ($16.98) CD sold through normal retail channels."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9561035&postcount=17

Well, I wasn't too far off originally. I knew about the packaging deduction. I think that includes cover printing costs, etc. as well.

Yes.



Correct me if i'm wrong (I'll look this up) but i'm pretty sure royalties are given based on the retail price.

As I said, they make money via. touring as well.

Having been in contract with an indie before I can tell you. It's the wholesale not the retail.

As far as touring, generally the label will not put up the expenses. If you make say $1,000,000 on a US tour, minus cost of travel, lights, sound, tickets, rental for venue, equipment, roadies, food, hotels, etc. you end up only making about $10,000 out of the million. Percentage wise that sucks, but if you take into account the real #'s it isn't bad. Most tour income comes from merchandise, which also has costs to the bad, but has no middle man like Ticketmaster to deal with.

If the record labels refuse to make it available to the public in any other way, make it so that the song you want cannot be purchased legally, in the normal way, then yes, downloading ought to be okay.

Old songs, like, from the 80's...I like these songs and want them. and if the record labels refuse to let go the copyrights...AND refuse to make it so that I can legally purchase the song, then screw 'em, they deserve what they get.

If they put the song out so that I can download it for a nominal fee, I'll do that before downloading free...but if they won't make it available to buy...and I can get it for free...and I want the song....fuck 'em, I'm gonna TAKE it, too!

For the kind of stuff I want, old stuff, not new release...the labels long ago made thier money on it, anyway. And if I already own the song, in casette format, why should I have to buy the song AGAIN, just because I now want it in CD format? they already made ther money off me for the song, and so...fuck 'em, I am gonna take it.

But if I haven't already legally purchased the song, in a different format...AND it is available for purchase for a nominal fee, then I will buy it. That's the right thing to do.

But it's wrong of record labels to hold onto copyrights, and then refuse to release the song so that it cannot be purchased on the market in the normal way...and then piss and moan when folks download it free. You wanna make your money on it, then you make it available. If not, piss on ya, I'm taking it...anywhere I can get it.


take into account also Fiona Apple's last release. Sony didn't hear a single so it got shelved. Then a radical group called freefiona.com (http://www.freefiona.com) managed to get a hold of it and released it "illegally".

I'm not a big fan of heres, but record companies suck.

If a band's music is good they'll still make money from concerts, and the record companies are the true evil. I think free music downloading should be completely legal.

'Good' is highly subjective. I regularly work with international touring bands who make 'good' music and are getting about $400 for a gig while on the road. Basically enough to pay for diesel, flights, food and maybe a spare set of strings.

I think that downloading music which hasn't been cleared for download is wrong, as it robs the bands of their money. Listening to snippets of CDs is the best, if you ask me, because it gives you a taste of it without actually letting the music out for free.

Not that I ever download music except for off iTunes where you have to pay anyway.

I do download, but not too much. And, like most people, I delete stuff I download that I find I don't particularly like. If an album's good enough, I will buy it, just as a student, I really don't have much to spend on music. Eventually, and I know people say this, but I do mean this, I'll buy every album I've downloaded and kept when I can afford to do so - whether or not this makes my downloading acceptable is another matter.
On a side issue, I've now found it's more often than not cheaper to buy cds on the internet from America than buy them here in England - $10 + $5 shipping = about £8/£8.50...whereas I'd be paying about £9/£10 for the cd on the high street.
People forget that the price of cds has been falling in recent years - the drop in real terms over the last five years is up to 50% in some places. If this continues - and it probably will, as the legal download market expands - then cds will be even lower in the next few years. Possibly down as low as £5 (about $10) for releases just a few weeks old.

Down with the capitalist pig-dogs! If a band's music is good they'll still make money from concerts, and the record companies are the true evil. I think free music downloading should be completely legal. O and just in case there are any feds here, I don't illegally download music because I'm a law abiding citizen. ;) ;)
Yeah, I would like to note I have not downloaded any music able to be bought in the US since music downloading has been declared "teh evil"