Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Here it from an artist! Digital Downloading RIP-OFF by the labels.


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:
Here it from an artist! Digital Downloading RIP-OFF by the labels.


Just another example of RIAA greed and further proof that the artist IS NOT who they protect...

Weird Al Yankovic Says Digital Is a Raw Deal For Some Artists

Posted Jun 14th 2006 1:07AM by Grant Robertson

King of comic rock, Weird Al Yankovic says digital is a raw deal for artists like himself. When asked by a fan whether purchasing a conventional CD or buying a digital file via iTunes would net Yankovic more pocket money the artist answered on his website.

"I am extremely grateful for your support, no matter which format you choose to legally obtain my music in, so you should do whatever makes the most sense for you personally. But since you ASKED... I actually do get significantly more money from CD sales, as opposed to downloads. This is the one thing about my renegotiated record contract that never made much sense to me. It costs the label NOTHING for somebody to download an album (no manufacturing costs, shipping, or really any overhead of any kind) and yet the artist (me) winds up making less from it. Go figure."

It confuses me too Weird Al. I think you deserve at least an equal amount of compensation for each digital track sold as you would be entitled to for that same one track on CD. 


As you said Al, "Go figure". I'm a big fan, you've given me a lot of fun music over the years, and I wanted to do what you said. So, I went and did the math.

Here's what I found out: (more after the jump)

According to DownhillBattle, Apple pays the labels $0.65 (some say its as high as $0.80) of the $0.99 cents paid for your song.

So, for an album with the average 12 songs, like your current release "Poodle Hat" which has exactly 12,  Apple takes in $11.88. Apple sends the label $7.80. That's $4.08 cents for the boys in Cupertino. And, it might be a pretty reasonable split if you then received the whole $7.80. Apple would take 35% of your work, for developing the infrastructure that makes you able to sell it to millions of people while you sleep, instead of selling it to 5 people out of your van in the parking lot of Stuckey's. That's what we call a value equation. Apple did work, and got paid for it. You did an arguably larger portion of the work, by creating something people wanted to buy in the first place, so Apple got a little money, and you got a good deal more.

Unfortunately, that's not how this version of the universe operates. So Apple sends the check to your record label.

The record label takes that $7.80. And, let's face it, they had something to do with your making the album. In some cases, you may have even been contractually required to make another album, whether you felt like it or not. So, you could say that without the record company, you'd not have made an album at all. They paid for the production, and some marketing, and now they should get paid right along side of you as the artist. You created the music, they recorded it and packaged it, marketed and distributed it. Right?

Well, not exactly. First, many artists can record fantastic music of very high quality in their own home studios. So, for some artists the record label is more marketing firm than recording technician(or, the guy who pays for one). But if the record label paid for your recording they will take 100% of sales until the recording costs are re-imbursed. They'll also keep taking money until paid back for promotional costs, packaging design and more.

If you manage to break even, here's where the money just starts rolling in. Right? The label got their money back (by taking $7.80 of every $7.80 that Apple paid them) so, now they're going to start sending you most of the $7.80 per record they are receiving.

Not so fast. According to widely circulated data from the coverage of The Alman Brothers suit against Sony BMG, you could expect something like $45 of each thousand songs sold to be paid to you in royalties. That's around 4% of the amount paid to Apple for your work, and around 5.7% of what was paid to the label. For The Almans', that works out to $24,000 when taking Nielsen SoundScan data of 538,000 Almans' songs sold as downloads since mid-2002. I don't have SoundScan data on your sales, but I'm sure you do. So the labels and Apple got 96% and you got %4. And as you said, there were no packaging, shipping or storage costs for your album sold though iTunes.

I went to Amazon.com and found that your album is selling for $14.98. That's $3.10 more than iTunes, but you get an actual CD, liner notes and a snazzy jewel case. And, you actually own the CD. You're really just kinda leasing the songs with iTunes, but we'll save that for another time. Suffice it to say that I think $14.98 is a totally reasonable price.

If your deal with your record company is like The Alman Brothers, then you're getting something like $315.50 for those same 1,000 songs (83.3 CDs worth). That works out to $0.31 cents per song, instead of the $0.045 on a digital download.

Ouch! It turns out you were being more than kind to that fan by telling him to buy either format he wanted, you're losing $0.265 cents per song! . If all of your fans bought through iTunes rather than buying CDs at the record store you'd be looking at an overall reduction in income of 85%!

Eighty Five Percent! If they cut my income by 85%, I'd be making soup from old shoes down by the railroad tracks!

My advice is probably similar to what your accountant's would be. Tell your fans to buy a CD, your retirement income may depend on it.


__________________


Permanent Vacation



Status: Offline
Posts: 23086
Date:

So I'm wondering if there's a difference between how much Apple takes per song from iTunes and how much Napster takes.  I'd be willing to only download songs from the one that takes the least.  (Not that I do that much song downloading anyway, I prefer to have the CD.)

__________________

tumblr_maefr2j2Bt1rrd8d6o1_500.gif

 



Ghost In The Machine

Status: Offline
Posts: 9401
Date:

After reading about this, I wonder the same thing Mz.  My daughters and I do a lot of downloading through iTunes, and I'd be happier if I knew which digital downloading site gave more of my money to the artists.  Most times I buy the cd from the store, but there are times I want only one or two songs from the disc so it makes more sense to download those as opposed to buying a whole disc worth of songs I don't want.   Wonder if there's a way to find out which site gives more to the artists.  

__________________



2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

I don't think it matters much site to site.

It's the labels that take the biggest chunk and yet give a smaller portion to the artist than if they had sold the CD.

The RIAA's currently in a major battle with iTunes, the industry leader, to increase the price of a download.  They want to be able to charge whatever they want, but Apple is resisting, saying that .99 is a price point at which music will move, over that and sales start dropping.


__________________


Permanent Vacation



Status: Offline
Posts: 23086
Date:

Jeremy Riggs wrote:

The RIAA's currently in a major battle with iTunes, the industry leader, to increase the price of a download. They want to be able to charge whatever they want, but Apple is resisting, saying that .99 is a price point at which music will move, over that and sales start dropping.


Well duh, that's the point, isn't it?  (At least in their minds.)

But still, even if Napster gave one extra penny than iTunes, there's a chance that penny might end up in the pocket of the artist, albeit a slim one.

__________________

tumblr_maefr2j2Bt1rrd8d6o1_500.gif

 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard