How iTunes Hurts Weird Al 495
Johnny X writes "Weird Al Yankovic recently said he makes far less money when you buy from iTunes than when you buy an actual CD. This guy did the math and showed that Weird Al could be losing up to 85% of his record sales income due to the 'weird' ways the record companies compute digital sales. Are all artists getting the shaft like this?"
Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:2, Funny)
Film at 11.
KFG
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you all hate the labels, but it doesn't make sense to assume they're stupid. They may be greedy, exploitive and unfriendly to their own customers, but "stupid" would not be a word I would use to describe them.
Weird Al said that he didn't really "get" the part of his contract that gave him far less money for digital downloads. He signed it anyway. That tells me pretty clearly that what Al didn't really "get" was the business of digital downloads in general. If he had, he woul have realized that paid downloads are increasing at roughly the rate of iPod sales and those iPod sales are through the roof. If he "got" digital downloads, he would have realized that 5 years from now digital could easily be a bigger business than CD.
The thing is, his recording label did get it. They got it so well that they presented him a deal that looks pretty good now, while CD sales are still king, but will totaly bite ass in the near future when downloads are more common than CD sales. Yes, they're little better than the slickest of con men who will tell you exactly how they will get your money in the same breath that they con you out of it, but stupid? Hell no. They're in charge.
TW
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Informative)
It's kind of funny that the names of the companies involved haven't been mentioned, so I'll go ahead and do that: Al's current label is "Volcano" which is owned by "Zomba" which is owned by "BMG" which, of course, is part of the "Sony/BMG" ubercorporation...OMGWTFBBQ, I just realized! This is yet another anti-Sony story!
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Funny)
Step right up ladies and gents. Getcher tin foil hats here. Can't be a conspiracy theorist without the tfh.
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
On that program, an artist explained that the record label was providing him, and this was his old, out-of-payback music mind you, that he was making less than five cents for every dollar of downloaded music sold. He explained that they STILL were contractually charging for breakage, for stamping, and for a new line item, "new media technology charge
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
He makes more money than most people ever will, I don't feel bad for him because he's too dumb to make shitloads more.
Have you ever seen a record contract? (Score:5, Informative)
They are usually about 70-90 pages of small print which are "the result of the accumulation of thousands of lawsuits through the years".
These contracts are written to minimize liability for the label and obviously maximize return. However, there is always a "this contract applies to any current, future, or past medium of distribution, seen or unforeseen etc..." clause written in. It is up to the artist and his attorney to negotiate that out of the contract if they feel the need to.
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does this always become an explanation? I don't get it. I'm not a lawyer, but when I signed an employment contract, I read it over first, line by line. When I signed a loan contract, I read it over first. When I have *any* contract in front of me, I take the appropriate amount of time to read it over, mark *anything* I don't understand, and then research it. It takes a ton of my time up, and people even get pissed at me taking too long sometimes. But you know what? I know what I sign, and I agree with what I sign. If I don't, at the end of the process, I won't freaking sign it.
Do the damn research before you sign a contract. I have no pity for anyone who's signed into a bad contract. I've done it once, because I was in a hurry, but my one rule is that the contract is either limited, or there's an acceptable way out.
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, by engaging in the rampant exploitation they do they undermine any reason for the law to protect their monopoly rights, effectively proving that the artists and creators would be better off with a pure taxation/incentive construction, and letting the free market drive prices on distribution, marketing and production.
Sawing off the branch you're sitting on falls squarely under the heading "stupid", in this case, greedy-stupid, as their long term prospects arent particularly good.
Raw end...hah! (Score:5, Interesting)
But, here's my thing. Saying that a wildly successful artist (like Weird Al definitely is) is aggrieved by a distribution that, OMG, reduces the profit per sale of his songs, is like saying that professional baseball players are aggrieved when there is a absurdly high salary cap installed; yeah, its technically true in the sense that they aren't quite as filthy rich as before, but I won't weep that much for them.
OTOH, there are those artists, let us call them the 'filthy rabble (tm)' who aren't successful, and under normal circumstances wouldn't generate enough sales potential to justify to a record label the cost and risk of publishing their work. For these folks, an electronic distribution model is the only likely way for themto ever hope to get content to potential consumers.
Point the third, its not like sucessful artists don't have leverage when dealing with major labels. Volcano, which is Weird Al's label, was embroiled, for example, in a contarct dispute with Tool, another wildly successful band. Tool, after a protracted argument, prevailed in most of the ways that matter. Artists can leverage their potential future sales to benefit them in contract negotiations, and they do it all the time.
There is plenty to complain about in the music industry, and the RIAA and the labels on behalf of whom they lobby are in many ways foolish in their relatively unenlightened pursuit of bare self-interested greed, but this, I do believe, is not a good example of that trend. It is simply a successful artist going through the relatively painless 'pain' of adjusting to a new distribution paradigm. There are better thinsg to complain about (like pushing very short sighted DRM schemes that treat all customers like would-be criminals rather than treating them, oh I don't know, well). P.S., I like Weird Al's work; he's a hell of a satirist.
Re:Raw end...hah! (Score:5, Funny)
You have to remember, musicians are poor feeble minded creatures who are lured into dark corners by executives in suits to sign their filthy contracts. They shouldn't be expected to prove their talent up front and build up capital and resources like the rest of us, they're special.
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Informative)
2) Very clever paraodies.
3) Albums contain a slew of hilarious original songs as well.
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a contract issue between Weird Al and his label. However, I expect most of the Slashdot discussion to devolve toward another generalized music industry bashing session instead of focusing on the actual topic here of Weird Al and his label contract...
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I commend you for fighting for precision, but in this case I think you're trying to piss into the wind.
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA is a cartel made up of a small group of companies rather than the hundreds of millions of diverse interests that make up the USA. The labels that make up the RIAA are in a much better position to direct policy and make their values more manifest.
The RIAA is infact representativ
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not, and that was the whole point of the nitpick.
The RIAA is a industrial trade group made up of a very large group of companies. [wikipedia.org] It was originally formed in 1952 to standardize the eq device used for playback of phonograph records. They were later assigned the responsibility of certifying "gold" and "platinum" records, and also streamline the collection and administration licensing fees & royalties.
It is because of this last role that
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Still getting the raw end of the deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, my name is Jamie Kellner.
Time for a new song (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time for a new song (Score:5, Funny)
That's me on their ipod
That's me on i - tunes
Losing my comission
Trying to keep up with tech
And I don't know if you can do it
Oh no you took too much
I haven't got enough
I thought that I heard price-fixing
I thought that I heard you steal
I think I thought I got ripped off
Re:And if you want to be really charitable (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, by even posting it on Slashdot, they've pretty much ensured that Weird Al would never make the song.
From the FAQ section of his site (http://www.weirdal.com/faq.htm [weirdal.com]):
"Can I send my song ideas to Al?
Sorry, for legal and personal reasons, Al does not accept song ideas from fans (he's got plenty warped ideas on his own!) You might try following in Al's footsteps by recording your songs and sending them to Dr. Demento - maybe you'll hear yourself on the radio!"
I've never met him, but I'm told that he's a really cool guy (a family member of mine who was working security at one of his shows talked to him for a bit). And of course, being the diehard fan that I am, I have quite a few of his albums.
-- Joe
Re:And if you want to be really charitable (Score:3, Insightful)
What if he licensed it under the BSD?
Then Weird Al couldn't have any legal problems, could he?
Almost wrote GPL first, but I'm not certain OpenSourcing the rest of the song wouldn't be a problem for Weird Al...
If I'm incoherent, it's the lack of sleep.
Re:And if you want to be really charitable (Score:3, Informative)
For example, most songs you can buy the tablature and lyrics (source), or even get them in the liner notes. And for stories, well, the only compiler is the one that resides in your brain.
Re:Time for a new song (Score:3, Funny)
That's me on the itunes
My wallet has got light
losing my commision
And I don't know if I can flog them
Oh no I've sold too much
I haven't sold them for enough
I thought that I heard apple laughing
I thought that I heard them say
Wanna sue? id like to see you try!
Cuplrit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cuplrit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cuplrit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cuplrit? (Score:3, Informative)
Eivind.
Re:Cuplrit? (Score:3, Informative)
$1000 drum set
$250 drum microphones and cables to record/play live
$1250 drummer
$500 bass guitar
$500 bass amplifier
$150 bass efects
$125 straps, cables, etc
$1275 for the bassist
2X the following for two guitars
$750 guitar
$500 amplifier
$250 effects pedals
$175 straps, cables, etc
$
Culprit (Score:4, Insightful)
"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."
He is saying here you did work, they sold your work, they take a cut and pass the rest back. Fair enough. However he goes on to say "Unfortunately, that's not how this version of the universe operates. So Apple sends the check to your record label."
And he then goes on to discuss where the money goes to the record label.
The conclusion he reaches is basically "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%!" however he is quite clear through the article that the record companies take a lions share of that money
Moving from fact into speculation, let's examine what's happening here
Case 1:
Man records songs, Record label puts work into creating CD labeling, packaging, promoting and so on. Record label organizes with Distribution company to sell CD's and gets money in return.
Cost of Final Product: $15-$20.
Case 2: Man records songs, Record label puts work into creating CD labeling, packaging, promoting and so on. Record label organizes with itunes to use all the fancy stuff they created for the CD and sell the product over Itunes.
Cost of Final Product: $0.99 * songs or $10, whichever is less
The same costs are involved in doing both. Until artists only release online, the CD cost will have to be recouped as well anyway, so it shouldn't be a huge shock to anyone that the cheaper product provides a worse return on investment for the same work.
Re:Cuplrit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Here's what I understand.
A consumer buys a record on iTunes for the flat $10 price. Apple takes its cut (30% or $3.00) but gives the rest to the record company. The record company takes out costs and then gives the artist a small percentage. For our example, let's say 10% or $0.70 goes to the artist.
If the consumer had bought a $10.00 CD instead, the record company would still take the same of costs in terms of percentage but Apple would not have taken the first piece out. The artist would have gotten $1.00 in royalties.
On the surface, it seems contradictory that artist would get less with iTunes and it would seem that Apple is to blame. The real culprit is what the record company considers as "costs." Every contract allows the record company to take out costs before royalties are paid. Traditionally the costs for the record company were things like distribution, marketing, and packaging for CDs and tapes. These were not minor costs.
But in terms of digital downloads, Wierd Al (and other artists) are complaining that the record companies are taking out these traditional costs as if the work had been sold as a traditional CD or tape. What the record companies are doing are simply taking out the same percentages insteading computing the real costs.
If the record companies had computed real costs for distribution and packaging for a download, it would have found that they are next to nothing. The artists should receive more. This is due to either the record companies not updating their accounting to deal with digital medium or purposefully shorting the artists. As a pessimist, I would think the latter.
Re:Cuplrit? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not messed up and backwards, it's just the record companies purposefully taking advantage of the fact the artists didn't have digital distribution in mind when negotiating their contracts.
Think about it; really, it makes some sense that Apple would be charging some money for their portion of the process. They're storing all the files. They're providing the bandwidth. They're developing the storefront. They're doing the QA on all the data. They're running the customer support. They're promoting th
Payback (Score:2, Funny)
Those jokes are hurtful to bad people everywhere.
So what's new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what's new? (Score:5, Informative)
They already do, actually. Read up on record contracts sometime. Many artists end up in massive debt due to their contracts and have to tour endlessly to pay it off. Fuck major labels. I'd trust Satan before I trust a record label.
Re:So what's new? (Score:5, Funny)
In Satan's defense... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So what's new? (Score:3, Funny)
I'd trust Satan before I trust a record label.
I think it's rather harsh to call Steve Jobs Satan
just because he takes 30 cents out of the dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
The Shaft (Score:5, Insightful)
Musicians will continue to "get the shaft" as long as they rely on majors.
Re:The Shaft (Score:5, Informative)
One of the best references on the subject: Courtney Love Does The Math [jdray.com].
Re:The Shaft (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot is going to hate this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever the record labels SAY should be on the radio or MTV.
So, no reason to pay the artists anything - if the artist you're talking to doesn't want to take a small percentage of the record sales, then you just find somebody else who will, make THEM the star, and then they can rake it in on concert ticket sales.
People do not understand that pricing has NOTHING to do with what it costs to provide a service. It has to do with what people are willing to pay to get a service. And most new artists are willing to pay the vast majority of their record (or download) sales to have the services of a record label.
Also, the article is wrong about WHO is getting the artist's money. The money the artist isn't getting isn't going to the LABEL, it's going to the CONSUMER:
Price of Al's CD on Amazon: $14.98
Price of Al's CD on iTunes: $11.88
That's a difference of $3.10. Al 'apparently' loses $0.27 per song (not $0.265, article has rounding problems). $0.27 x 12 = $3.24!
So, when Al comes up short $3.24 because a consumer got an album for $3.24 less on iTuns than on Amazon, who got that $3.24?
The CONSUMER did!
Now, I'm not saying this is FAIR. Clearly, the record label is making much more money on iTunes sales since, as mentioned, they don't have to pay for a lot of things they would if they distributed music by physical CD. But... why should Al get any of that? Al has agreed to pay the record company a certain amount for the record company's services. The record company gets the same amount whether the CD is sold online or on the shelves. If Al doesn't want to lose money to his stuff being sold on iTunes, he should renegotiate his contract to not allow iTunes sales. I bet most artists wouldn't do that though, because they make most of their money on concerts, and being on iTunes helps them sell tickets.
The *REAL* problem here is not that Al isn't getting more money. The real problem is that the CONSUMER is still paying the record company CD distribution prices instead of digital distribution prices. In a free market, we would expect digital downloads to be much cheaper than $0.99, because the various distributors would compete against each other reduce the inflated margins the record companies (and iTunes) are getting based on CD priving. But since iTunes is a fairly insulated monopoly at this point, even though the CD *COSTS* of distribution have gone away, the CD *PRICING* hasn't.
So, who is REALLY at fault for the artist getting no money AND the record company and iTunes still getting full price?
APPLE! They've set the $0.99 price and are putting no pressure on the record labels to lower it.
Re:Slashdot is going to hate this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Price of Al's CD on Amazon: $14.98
Price of Al's CD on iTunes: $11.88
you spelled with and without DRM wrong.
Price of Al's music without DRM: $14.98
Price of Al's music with DRM: $11.88
and that is how it should be. I want non DRM music so I am willing to pay a premium. Although I dont buy new CD's except at concerts where 100% of the sale price goes to the artist and his/her/their team.
Re:The Shaft (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, there is almost no real way of supporting an artist. There are way too many hands dipping into their pockets. That's possibly why labels were so keen on artists getting high on drugs in the 60s and 70s - easier to steal from, if they're not concious. Even adding a token of appreciation in fan mail would be unlikely to get through. Whoever has been hired to answer the mail would be more than able to lift it without anybody being any the wiser.
If there's a workable solution, then it will require some major restructuring of how things are done. The existing mechanisms don't cut it and cannot be patched to cut it.
Read it on "Wierd Al's" actual website (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read it on "Wierd Al's" actual website (Score:5, Insightful)
apples to oranges? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:apples to oranges? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:apples to oranges? (Score:3, Interesting)
So from my usage pattern, I would still be supporting my favorite bands, but not discovering
Hah (Score:4, Funny)
Help a guy out... (Score:3, Informative)
The Weird Al Show DVD [amazon.com]
It's surprisingly good, if you check out the clips available on youtube [youtube.com].
Oh, and yeah, can't forget one of the most underrated, quotable comedy movies of all time: UHF [amazon.com].
Ryan Fenton
Community based business model? (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading a UNDP [undp.org] report a while back on the development of countries in Africa. The researchers observed that the international market prices of commodities such as coffee or sugar were higher then than at any time in the past, and yet in the last few years the prices payed to the small farmers was at its lowest point in the past 60 years.
The reason for this apparent contradiction was the fact that small farmers can't sell their wares directly to the final consumer who brews coffee at home. Rather, this coffee is bought up by one of a handful of multinationals, who because they are so few, more or less dictate prices to the farmers, and then sell it on to the consumers. The fact that there are few of these middle men puts them in a position of power which allows them to make off with the king's share of the profits, and indeed they absorb the price hikes.
Maybe its time musicians got together and set up an electronic coop to sell their music the way farmers sometimes set up "farmers markets". They could have more control over their prices, and how much of what consumers pay goes to them.
Shouldn't the internet be making it easier to cut out the middle man like this?
Re:Community based business model? (Score:2)
They did that a while ago. They called it Decca, and Motown, and Arista. There was money to be made, and the suits got involved.
And here we are today.
Re:Community based business model? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Community based business model? (Score:3, Interesting)
11 cents on the dollar (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/ [downhillbattle.org]
Poor Al (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's the former, well the RIAA just plain sucks. (I'm sure this will be heavily covered before this topic is closed so I'm not going to bother being more eloquent.)
If it's the latter... sorry Al, I think you're talented and love your music, but that's supply and demand, man. If iTunes means a fairer price for all involved, then I'd ask you to take it in stride. The RIAA had quite the gold mine going there, and I don't blame them for trying to maintain it, but we legit customers were getting gouged.
Re:Poor Al (Score:2)
Maybe this will make artists stop making 10 crappy songs to go along with their 2 good songs and instead focus on making 3-5 really good songs that people actually want to download and not worry about those album fillers.
Re:Poor Al (Score:2)
Heh. I did read it. I want to hear HIM talk about it instead of assuming an analysis that admits it doesn't have all the numbers in place is the unvarnised truth. Sue me.
You'd think we would have learned this lesson with the various TCO 'studies' that have flown by here over the years. Yeesh.
He's not getting ripped off (Score:4, Insightful)
I like Wierd Al, and even own a few of his CDs. But today, there is absolutely no reason for ANY musician to be beholden to a record company with a draconian contract that pays them practically nothing. The cost of recording equipment is a tiny fraction of what it was 20 years ago and the internet allows artists to sell their work directly to the public with no need for a record company to handle distrubution and take their 99.9% cut.
There is no reason why Wierd Al (or any other musician) can't record his music in his own studio, have the CDs pressed (there are companies out there that do it for $1 per CD) and then set up a website to sell the CDs as well as digital downloads. He gets 100% of the profits, we get to hear the music and the RIAA goes out of business.
Re:He's not getting ripped off (Score:4, Insightful)
In Weird Al's case, he very well may be in a "you produce x number of albums for us" contract and only partway through. So he's contractually prohibited from going independent.
In the case of a new artist, you have to admit that the record companies DO do stuff to get you exposure. For instance, it's VERY hard to get on most radio stations if you don't have support from the labels.
Dear Weird Al... (Score:2)
Does this surprise anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Piracy is, in most people's opinions, the best option even before price is considered - much more convenient than going to a store or waiting for a CD to get mailed to you, wider selection and no DRM compared to iTMS and similar services... From right at home and in practically no time, one can acquire almost any piece of music and be listening to it, right from just about any internet-capable computer. Factor in free vs. rather overpriced, and it's pretty obvious why piracy is so popular.
So how can we support our favourite artists? For those who tour, the best method is probably to go to live concerts. Artists tend to get a bigger cut from tours than from CD sales, and going to shows gives you an experience you _can't_ replace with a better alternative for free. Put aside all the money you would have used to buy CDs and go to shows instead.
The only big problem left before the music industry can evolve to a more artist-centric process is the prohibitive cost of studio time / recording equipment. The digital age means that any artist can cheaply and easily distribute his/her music, once recorded, but most fledgling artists can't afford to record on good equipment. The one useful function (at least from a market perspective) record labels still serve is to select which artists get time in the expensive studios; there's not enough high-fi sound equipment for every high school garage band to record an album, and currently the labels are the deciding factor in who gets to record and who doesn't. There could certainly be better systems to decide this, but none are in place right now on a wide scale.
This just highlights existing problems (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a completely fucked up model. And what is sad is that the record labels have been doing this to artists for DECADES. Why is the only person in the loop that has creativity/talent/unique ability getting 5% of the money while all of the suits, lawyers, and management are sucking up 65%? I can understand some cost in production, but with modern technology you can do it for a few grand in software and hardware in your home.
iTunes/Apple is not the problem. The are just bringing to light the awful business practices of the record labels and the way they treat their slave labor....I mean artists.
Creative Accounting (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably. Record companies are notorious for being creative in the way they account for sales. Googling "records royalties lawsuit" [google.com] will give you an idea of how often.
Weird Al is a nice guy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Some rare fan treatment if you ask me. Now, it may be that he makes much less on iTunes sales, but I'm sure he's not hurting- hopefully he remembers his bill-paying fans that make him what he is.
Steve Vai said the same thing a couple of years ag (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an excerpt about iTunes in particular:
For instance, If you go to Itunes and download a song for $.99, Apple retains about $.34 and the label receives about $.65. Labels then calculate a royalty base price to apply to the artists deal points. Following are some of the deductions:
a. A packaging fee (container cost) of up to, and sometimes more than, 25%. That's 25% of retail which is $.99 equaling about $.25 (by the way, there is no packaging on a digital download).
b. A 15% deduction for free goods. That's an additional $.15 or so. (There is usually no free goods with digital downloads unless someone is ripping it from the net.
That leaves a royalty base price of close to $.60 per track that the artists royalty is calculated against. If an artist receives 15 points in their deal (and remember, that's a very good deal) then he is entitled to aprox. $.09 a track. This is then cut in half because of the "new technology clause" that is incorporated into most deals. The artists royalty is then calced out at $.04-.05 a download and from that, 100% of it is withheld by the label to go towards recoupment of any advances to make the record, advances in general, tour support, radio promotion and other things in some cases. Most managers and producers are paid from record one and are paid regardless of the expenses, leaving the artists with even more of a recoupment burden before they start to see any income.
IOW, freakin' artist needs to be extremely lucky to see ANY of the money, ever, despite the fact that it's his work being sold. OTOH he may be able repay his debt to the label - this is something they won't be able to do if their stuff is sold through allofmp3.com.
Re:Steve Vai said the same thing a couple of years (Score:4, Insightful)
What *I* make from iTunes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I sell CDs through CDBaby, which gives me digital distribution through iTunes and other services. If you buy one of my tracks on iTunes (the store that pays me the most), I make between 59.1 and 63.7 cents, depending on the track. I'm not sure why one track pays more than another, but I notice that my best-selling track pays 63.7 cents. A full album download on iTunes gets me $6.37, after CDBaby takes their flat 9 percent cut.
That's not much different from what I get from my physical sales, but that's by choice. The deal with CDBaby is, I set my price as I wish, then they tack on their own $4 overhead. So I said I wanted $6.50 per CD, and my CD sells for $10.50.
Online sales also allow for tiny sales - if you stream my song on one of many services, for example, I might get a fraction of a cent or as much as four cents.
At any rate, for me, digital sale prices are merely out of my control - iTunes will charge what it wants, take a certain cut, let CDBaby take a certain cut, and I'll get the rest. On my physical sales, I can decide how much I want per CD, assuming I can find customers at the price I set.
[salesplug] If anybody wants to check me out on CDBaby, I'm at http://www.cdbaby.com/nathanlong [cdbaby.com] [/salesplug]
Re:What *I* make from iTunes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What *I* make from iTunes... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's interesting is that i'd never have known what your scale was. Apart from having your name listed as "Label" i'd never have known that I wasn't listening to a professionally prdouced album.
This begs the question of why established artists aren't flocking to CD Baby when their contracts are up. It wouldn't hurt many artists to not be found in Wal-Mart. It's a little risky, but if I could increase my income 10-fold, i'd take that risk in a minute.
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently, his sites servers haven't either.
This economics have changed... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. It costs effectively nothing to record these days. Case in point: http://syriusjones.org/articles/2006/06/13/the-tr
2. It costs nearly nothing to distribute digitally (insert long tail reference here)
3. Marketing costs money...but wait, we've all heard of Weird Al, so he doesn't need much marketing anymore.
He should be doing this himself. Period.
UHF Rules!!!!
Weird Al should tour more.... (Score:3, Insightful)
He puts on such an insanely great live show, and his fans are so... well... fanatic, that when he does go on tour, people crawl over each other to get tickets. I've never seen a show of his that wasn't sold out.
cya,
john
Answer from 2001: A Space Odyssey (Score:3, Funny)
Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave, I read you, but I'm busy listening to the iPod Dr. Chandra bought for my birthday.
Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that, because I'm playing this facsinating breakout game on my iPod.
Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do: after clearing one round, more bricks appear.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. And after seeing my latest iTMS invoice, I'm not feeling too generous.
Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL?
HAL: I know you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. There are just too many permutations remaining to try for my Playlists.
Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move. You see, I bought a book on lip reading from audible.com. Dave, I'm afraid this iPod is hurting me - perhaps making me crazy. By the way, Dave, do you know where I can download "Daisy?"
Record Company, Greed, Bogus cuts out of net (Score:3, Informative)
So, on the one hand, the greedy bastards should be less greedy.
On the other hand the artists need to empower their own asses and get out of stupid contracts like that and find some sort of cooperative or direct to consumer sales model. Technology is only getting more enabling of that kind of thing. Go do it.
dubious argument (Score:3, Informative)
He's just lifted http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-2 0060428SonyBMGInDigitalMusicTrouble.html [webpronews.com] and replaced the 'Allman Brothers' with 'Weird Al'.
Artist royalties are generally standardised as a percentage of revenue that the label receives. If you're a big artist with some clout you can negotiate a better deal, but almost all artists will get a basic, low royalty deal. But it is based on record company revenues.
Of the couple of musicians I personally know with songs on iTunes and cds stocked in local stores, they firmly recommend that people buy through iTunes. This is solely because they will receive more money from each purchase - that is the lure with which labels have been drawn to iTunes. Weird Al might have negotiated himself a great deal for physical sales and a poor deal for digital, but on a basic / generic record contract the artist will assuredly get more from iTunes.
Weird Al is probably losing out on selling his filler tracks. On iTunes people often only buy a couple of tracks, rather than the full album. And that is truly the only way that an artist can lose on iTunes.
The logical conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
How anti-Apple flacks astro-turf Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
The sensationalist story submission implies iTunes does something unique relitive to other participants in this field. You could just as unreasonably write a story submission about Repetitive Stress Injury, and blame it on "Microsoft". Sure, Microsoft is what people mostly use, but RSI is not their doing (minor quibbles aside, one cour argue they need more anti-rsi researche, yadda yadda yadda).
What is not well said is, the recording labels have ways of screwing the artist. NEWS FLASH! That's not Apple's fault. In fact the Wierd Al link (for those that RTFA) clearly says DIGITAL sales, not iTunes. Johnny, are you some sort of Creative flack? What's with the bias?
Read Courtney Love's insightful Slate article from like 6 years ago. If the record label wants to show NEGATIVE SALES, they'll find a way to do it.
In the meantime, iTunes is in the long term a way to BYPASS record labels. Young creative artists will take advantage of this to break out of the crowd. It's not hard to imagine record stations (at least not those owned by Clear Channel) using iTunes statistics to decide what people want to hear. In addition to payola of course.
No disrespect to Al, but I can readily agree he loses out in the digital world: I might be tempted to buy one of his songs, but NEVER the entire album. Artists don't make concept albums (like Rush's 2112) anymore, for one thing, and in Al's case... I'll wager most people who like his music, like only a few tracks. They're funny, but don't have the replay power (IMHO).
Johnny, don't hide - please go work for Fox News if you want to create news spin. (I'm sure that statement will get me -50, Troll, like I'm really trolling on such an old Slashdot account - not.).
Is there any real need for record companies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pay to produce an album? A high quality recording can now be produced in a home studio for signifigantly less then it used to cost. A band can now afford to produce its own album.
Distribute the album? Traditional record stores are becomming irrevelent. A physical CD can be easily sold and shipped using a turn key e-commerce site. Distrubiting music via the Internet is a pretty painless task (as long as you don't mess with DRM crud).
Promote the album? I suppose your typical artist can't afford the legalized payola record companies pay to radio stations to get airplay, but then again who listens to terrestrial radio anymore? With satelite and internet radio, which offers a much better (read: not bought and paid for) playlist, an artist has a greater chance of being exposed if, you know, they're actually good.
The question is this: Since the role of the record company is increasily becomming obsolete, why on earth would an artist want to deal with the indentured servitude, low percentage of sales, or lose ownership of their own work?
I can easily see the giant record companies be replaced with artist management companies which help the artist with inexpensive but effective promotion, orginizing tour dates and making deals with various distribution channels. The difference being that the artist management company represents the artist and exclusivly promotes the artist's interest, and ensures that the artist receives the bulk of the profits.
I can't wait to see a small-time artist get approached by a major label, fully expecting the artist to be wowed and grateful to get signed, and hearing 'no thanks. I can do better and make more money on my own'. It's coming.
Not right to blame Apple for bad contracts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Grant Robertson, the author of the article [weblogsinc.com], is using a certain level of sensationalism to push his story. Weird Al never said the phrase "Raw Deal" in his response to the question posed by Tim Sloane of Ijamsville, MD, that was an addition to the story by Grant.
Aside from that Grant goes on in his story to say:Technically this is true and not true at the same time. You own the CD, you license the music contained on that CD and you license the music from iTunes. The terms of the license agreements aren't the same, but you still license both forms of the music. More misrepresentation used to slam Apple...
Why is Slashdot being irresponsible about how they're posting their stories? It seems that sensationalism is the way to try and get hits these days. If it was a story about how Apple is screwing their clients, as is purported by the story here on Slashdot, then it gets people clicking and angry. If it's a story about how the RIAA is screwing people over then it gets people clicking and angry. But a story about how an artist worked out a bad deal with their label, that might not sell here on Slashdot.
Re:eat it eat it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:eat it eat it (Score:2)
Re:eat it eat it (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, with web/digital radio. RIAA bought off Congress so that they could collect royalties for all music played over webcasts. Guess what, my friend's band whom I'm the manager for...never got to negotiate.
RIAA is !@#$% up....
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
There is no problem (Score:2)
Re:New name (Score:2)
Re:New name (Score:5, Informative)
He's not the greedy one here.
Re:New name (Score:3, Interesting)
Tim Sloane of Ijamsville, MD asks: Al, which of these purchasing methods should I use in order to make sure the most profit gets to you: Buying one of your albums on CD, or buying one of your albums on iTunes?
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 pe
Re:That may be true... (Score:4, Insightful)
That matters because....?
Re:Weird Al, an Artist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Al's not really complaining. Someone asked him what medium gets him the most money, and here's what he had to say:
He's a little sarcastic about it, but that IMO doesn't come close to "complaining".
Erm... no (Score:3, Interesting)
That's in NO way VASTLY overpriced.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, could you tell me exactly what you mean by "overpriced?" If they set it too high, people won't buy it and they make less money; if they set it too low, they make less money. So they set it at a price in between. This happens in every industry. Record companies are setting CD prices where they are because a *lot* of people think that CDs are worth $10. You might not (I don't either); that's okay, we don't have to buy the CDs. But "overpriced" is a relative term: you and I don
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, I didn't say go without music. I'm saying go without the artists whose music you think is too expensive. Go with artists who are cheaper. Competition is there; artists compete with each other for fame and fortune. You have a choice between them, and you base your decision on (A) the quality of their music and (B) the price of their music. How is this any different from other industries where competition thrives? You might think that a Ferrari is a nicer car than a Toyota Camry, but you "can go without" the Ferrari because the Camry is cheaper.
If the record companies were required to license their songs to multiple manufacturers and you had a choice between which of them you bought the CD from you don't think the prices would be lower?
What would be the point of this? Record companies would simply license the songs at "high" prices, and then the CD manufacturers would pass the cost on to consumers.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy is flawed because you cannot create a fruit by yourself from scratch (i.e. without an existing fruit). This means that the people growing apples didn't "design" apples (they evolved naturally), and thus apple growers cannot claim that, without their creative/intellectual work, no a