Dear Log,
«I basically replaced all my vinyl records and cassette tapes with CDs, and then replaced all our VHS tapes and laserdiscs with DVDs. The record companies and studios would have laughed if somebody said, "This is just an upgrade. I should be able to turn in my vinyl and cassettes for CDs and my videotapes for DVDs, for no more than the actual cost of production." Ha ha ha ha ha.»
Thanks for postingthe link.
--David
"Open sharing of music files doesn't actually hurt the creators of music. It helps them. When friends can say, "Have you heard Eva Cassidy's music? Here, I'll send you a couple of songs, you won't believe how good she is," that's called "word of mouth," and what you'll get is more and more people who attend her live performances and buy her CDs."
Erm... I think someone ought to point out that Eva Cassidy's corpse does not do gigs. Although her spirit might. She died 7 years ago!
Overall a good article, but it does have some misleading inaccuracies. Record Companies, contrary to opinion do not make massive profits from each sale of a record. A bit of a breakdown...
Shop Retail Price - £15.00
Shop Trade Price - £7.50
Record Company Take - £4.00
Manufacturing - £1.50
Artists & Writers - £2.00
Of this the Record Companies have to account for publicity/promotion in their take too. These are not exact figures, but based on the costs that I was privy to when I was involved in that side of the industry. The biggest profits are with the publishing as they don't just make on records, most make it from Radio, TV, Film and Adverts.
The second part of the article discusses exactly what I have been saying since the whole Napster fiasco started. Those that purport to be losing money are multi-millionaires several times over. By instilling a negative on the people they are targeting, it is likely to do those that are shouting more harm than good.
It's interesting to note that Sir Paul McCartney, who is perhaps the most wealthy individual purely on the strength of publishing (he has never made a penny on any publishing of The Beatles material) has not said anything for or against the current mp3 sharing. Yet the business men are screaming blue murder.
Mp3 is not the end of the debate, as in another 10 years, there will likely have been at least 2 other formats that will have gaulled the money grabbers. By which time mp3 will probably be an accepted format to replace CD singles. Anyone remember cassette singles, 12" singles
Re:The grateful dead?
pudge on 2003-11-11T17:49:13
Of this the Record Companies have to account for publicity/promotion in their take too.
You're forgetting the part where many artists are required to pay for their own recording, and even promotion, out of their royalties, so they end up owning the record company money.
Re:The grateful dead?
barbie on 2003-11-12T09:29:20
It depends on the advance and the record company. It's such a variable factor that I left it out.Many bands are sensible enough to only take an advance that can cover the recording, etc. That way they can reap the benefits quicker, and the record companies are more likely to keep them on as they get a quicker return on their investment. Some record companies factor in the recording costs into their own accounts, especially ones that have their own studios, others pass the burden onto the artists.
It's rare these days for an artist to have to pay for promotion. Interviews on TV and Radio, joint adverts with retailers (certainly here in the UK) have shifted alot of the costs. Plus there is much more product endorsement that helps out too.
Advances are the only reason that any band has to pay the record company. The reason for this is that they are really only loans to get the recording done, etc. As a consequence if everything goes belly up and the band disband, they still owe the record company. If a band record an album and the record company doesn't like it, they have sometimes requested they rerecord it, which is not fun. Sometimes the record company takes the artist to court, as was the case with David Geffen vs Neil Young many years ago
... he went onto to release Freedom after leaving Geffen :) ... but thankfully those cases are rare. I actually find it a joke when the media report that The Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson or whoever, has signed for the biggest advance ever! It's just a loan, they have to pay it back.
Plus legally the record company cannot withhold royalities if they are paid through a publishing company. There was a case a number of years ago where royalities were being withheld, even though a couple of the songwriters weren't in the band, and had not been party to any advance payment. Although that is were ultimately the advances do get paid back from. Unfortunately I can't remember any of the details of the case as it was about 20-odd years ago.
