Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 12:02 UTC
Multimedia, AV I generally need a billion words to explain the problems inherit in the current copyright system. Joss Stone needs just one minute. "I don't care how you hear it - as long as you hear it." Can we please appoint Ms Stone as supreme overlord of the universe?
Thread beginning with comment 458625
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sparkyERTW
Member since:
2010-06-09

Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Any large records company, perhaps?


Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.

Reply Parent Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.

Poorly indeed. AFAIK artists only get about 1% of the money their records actually produce, and when the artists sign a contract with such a company the contract usually even has a clause stating that the copyright doesn't belong to the artist anymore.

Call me idealist, but IMHO that's also a form of stealing.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the rather recent case where the company actually didn't day the artists and just used their works to pound money.. You know, the case which just recently went through court and they had to shell out over 5 million dollars. How does that make you feel?

Edited 2011-01-17 16:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.

Poorly indeed. AFAIK artists only get about 1% of the money their records actually produce, and when the artists sign a contract with such a company the contract usually even has a clause stating that the copyright doesn't belong to the artist anymore.

Call me idealist, but IMHO that's also a form of stealing.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the rather recent case where the company actually didn't day the artists and just used their works to pound money.. You know, the case which just recently went through court and they had to shell out over 5 million dollars. How does that make you feel?


I like everything you said here. In fact, recalling what I've seen of album sales breakdowns, 1% may actually be generous. Maybe somewhat better when it comes to digital distribution, where artists get slightly more of the pie. Sad when Apple are the relative good guys, isn't it.

But not paying for artist's recordings means that instead of 1%, they get 0%. If you want to call yourself an idealist, fight for a ideal where the artists get more, Big Content less (or none), and with us possibly paying even less.

And yeah, I was outraged over artists treatment in that lawsuit, which sadly was done by my own country's music industry, and was actually 50 million! But if you're pirating an artists music, you're no better (well, okay, you're better, but still, shame on you).

Look, I'm not supporting rolling over and paying Big Content. I'm just saying our money should be finding their ways into the pockets of the musicians we love - in the best way possible for them - so they can keep on making it for us.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Poorly indeed. AFAIK artists only get about 1% of the money their records actually produce, and when the artists sign a contract with such a company the contract usually even has a clause stating that the copyright doesn't belong to the artist anymore.

Call me idealist, but IMHO that's also a form of stealing.

If you want, I've got some official numbers on that matter. They are about the French market, but it's probably the same everywhere.

For physical distribution :
Artist 4%
Producer 5.97%
Studio&Editor 15.6%
Sacem (local RIAA) 4.46%
Distributor 19.95%
Reseller 40.22%
The rest (~10%) is VAT

For online distribution
Artist 2.8%
Producer 7%
Studio&Editor 25.6%
Sacem 7.6%
Digital distributor 35%
Online reseller 1%
DRM&related 5%
The rest (~16%) is VAT

(From : SVM/L'ordinateur individuel n°232, 11/2010)

Think about it : the artist gets much less than even the VAT ^^'

Edited 2011-01-17 17:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

"Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Any large records company, perhaps?


Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.
"
Simply solved. Let's all of us, as humanity, pay 1 cent for every song, regardless of what the artist wants (just like the industry does to them). They won't have a choice than to sell for 1 cent then.

By your logic, it wont be stealing then would it? Next argument.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"[q]Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Any large records company, perhaps?


Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.
"
Simply solved. Let's all of us, as humanity, pay 1 cent for every song, regardless of what the artist wants (just like the industry does to them). They won't have a choice than to sell for 1 cent then.

By your logic, it wont be stealing then would it? Next argument. [/q]

Artists sign contracts, agreeing to that 1 cent. They have the alternative to find labels that will give them a bigger cut, or release their music independently to keep even more of a cut. No theft. Next argument.

Unless you'd like to cite what the Canadian record labels did with their "pending lists" classification, in which case, argument accepted (though without the 'any' qualifier).

Reply Parent Score: 1