Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does the Music Industry Already Know Music Pirating Does Not Hurt Sales?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeuronDivide

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Artists make money on digital music sales, concert tickets and merchandising royalties. If you are signed by a major label, you're making money.


Not really... While it's true that artists now have to tour and sell merch to make any money, once you give the manager+booking agent+promoters+publicist their cut and pay for flights+car hire+accom there's really nothing left over.



That is 100% The Artists own damn fault. It's been known for years how crooked the music industry is. If your band choose to deal with these people on their terms, you're gonna get slammed. Not making money? I don't feel sorry for you - you have been told time and time again but stupid bands do stupid things choosing to believe the hype of the thief who wants to exploit them.

In today's world in the Internet, bands do manage, promote, book gigs, even cut their own high quality dvd's all by themselves with little overhead.Those that had to rely on the "industry" over the years had to because back then doing it yourself was not cost effective. You can cut out all those middle men and save tons of money making you a proper profit.




posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
A registered copyright owner of many songs and several books...I have only a single point to make. I and the group, and the arranger perhaps...get to split by percentage anywhere from $350 per quarter to as much as $5000 on another quarter, then the next? Maybe nothing. Next year? Maybe nothing. (we go thru trends in our music and are getting Internationally paid royalties)

I take neither side ( I can see both) but want to explain that out of all those sharing and not buying....I could be getting that income. (And no need to try and convince me sales are stimulated by sharing.) Simply...that which is not bought....could have been, and the money going to the registered copyright owner (s).

I get no money...and certainly not more....when music is shared...and I couldve been receiving royalties.


Perhaps people thinks your music sucks. Perhaps your paying the wrong team to promote you. If you had songs on the radio.. do you get a royalty every time that song is played? That's sharing. Have any songs on Internet radio stations? You know there is large legal networks now that bring local radio stations to anyone with a net connection all over the world. Do you consider all of these missed opportunities for sales? I call that damn good advertising you don't have to pay for. What about downloading music over the radio to your cassette player like we did in the 80's?

How about this - how about you don't be dumb and release your music in a format that is easily copied and there wont be any sharing problem.. have you thought of that? See, you are just as much to blame as the sharers.

You asked for No discussion because we aren't "registered copyright owners" and somehow we must not have any intelligence. I find that insulting.(you implied)

No discussion back and forth please....I have yet to see any contributor to any of these threads acknowledge to be a registered copyright owner.... Most opinions on this subject I see are made from those of you who are outside the industry, not in. I am, so Ive made my point.


Silly of you, you just challenged me to answer you and discuss this.
edit on 11-4-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: addition



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 

the truth of the matter is that music artists don't make much money per disk, the producers get the vast majority of the money.

support what you like.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

I am going to try to explain the industry here....

We've had 11 # 1's, are one of Billboards Top 100 Rock and Roll groups of all times, and still sell widely... and are popular in the UK and Netherlands as well as the US, and the Americas.

And again, you are speaking from outside the industry. The best you can do is read about it. We have share points of as little as 1/2% for one guy in the band and maybe 15% for the writer-guitar player...and each song can be different .percentages for our publishers in LA and NY and the UK...and so on...different $ arrangements on sometimes all the songs on an EP or LP.

We were paid a onetime fee over $20, 000 for the Sopranos episode, $5000 each for TRAINS, PLANES and AUTOMOBILES and TOMMY BOY with Chris Farley...both movies made and continue to make a fortune for the movie studios, and we got only the one time.

We are paid in UNITS each time a song is played anywhere in the world. If used by contract, we can get much more for its usage. If you share it...we get nothing. YEs, we are on all the popular music subscription services as well.

If someone SHARES it...no matter what....we get nothing to do that. And if anyone even THINKS about tours? Youve absolutely lost your minds. There are so many costs to touring, insurances, travel, food , cleaners, stage hands, light techs, drivers, guitar and drum techs.....its impossible to make a lot on any tour...and most avoid it.

Simply....the last time. We have to pay our writers, co-writers, musicians, publishers, distributors for every song professionally released by our distributor. If you share it...and then share it...and then share it....we-get-nothing.

We have attorneys in LA, NYC, UK, NETHERLANDS, ASIA etc...there are 5 of them and 1 PATENT ATTORNEY in NY as well....so you really cant grasp a monetary explaination of what is done in the business. We still have to pay these guys (some are $250 per hour or more)...even if youre sharing.

I actually support file sharing...but no one here has any real clue about how music gets on TV shows, concerts etc.and when the UNION requires you to be a member or not. Here it the A.F. of M. American Federation of Musicians (and anything on TV requires a COPYRIGHT to use or for me to PLAY it. Major record companies wont touch it or they will copyright it themselves. Too much liability and risk.

Im done. I hope Ive at least educated a few of you.
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


You are absolutely clueless about the industry. See my replies elsewhere. Yes, I too copied some lps and cassettes to learn guitar parts in the 70"s...but my point is ...and again...I am for sharing...but the point is share it...and I dont get paid for it.

Our music is in the SOPRANOS, TRAINS PLANES and AUTOMOBILES, TOMMY BOY and a few dozen commercials world wide. Yours?.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 

Yes I still get quarterly payments worldwide. And again, you are speaking from outside the industry. We have share points of as little as 1/2% for one guy in the band and maybe 15% for the writer-guitar player...and each song can be different .percentages for our publishers in LA and NY and the UK...and so on...different $ arrangements on sometimes all the songs on an EP or LP.

We were paid a onetime fee over $20, 000 for the Sopranos episode, $5000 each for TRAINS, PLANES and AUTOMOBILES and TOMMY BOY with Chris Farley.

I support file sharing...simply...if it not bought...the artist, rec company, songwriter, copyright owner, publisher all dont get paid. You knew that right? That it is divided like that?

Didnt think so...



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
yes I DID know that, I know a lot more then you think so why would you get paid over and over for work you did ONE time??

Like I said why are YOU special, I noticed you did NOT answer that question. you can always get a "real" job

your name is not out_of_ the_blue on another website perchance is it??
edit on 12-4-2013 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 

No...wow. Out of the Blue is a ATS associate of mine....but you wouldve seen that by us conversing with each other in replies on some posts. You did not...

And I have a full time job, volunteer with my city as well...and yes...collect royalties each 4 months.

The rest of your post doesnt even require addressing. So Im not.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
yes I DID know that, I know a lot more then you think so why would you get paid over and over for work you did ONE time??

Like I said why are YOU special, I noticed you did NOT answer that question. you can always get a "real" job

your name is not out_of_ the_blue on another website perchance is it??
edit on 12-4-2013 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)


Be careful about what you call a "real" job.

If your definition of a "real" job is that you're clocking in under some other person's clock and authority, then you've severely limited what "real" jobs are.

Tell me: All the luthiers, and businesses, that go through the entire intensive process of building fine instruments, and all the thousands of people that are employed in the industry creating these instruments... do you not think their livelihoods not matter, too? And so, then, if no one is buying the instruments they are creating, and if no one is using those instruments for a purpose, where would THEIR livelihood be?

Royalties do, in fact, make sense. The being said, musicians don't earn "salaries", neither do they even earn hourly commissions. But, rather, they earn commissions; which is the riskiest form of payment, by far. You see, they only get what people are willing to give. If the product is good, well, hot dog, they sold something good! But if they spent all their time and effort for something nobody will pay for... they worked for free, and the product wasn't in demand (or was useless).

Musicians are entrepreneurs. They don't get paid like people do at "real" jobs. And you know, there are business men made every year that were once poor and then created a good product and they exploded. And musicians, sometimes, as well. And you know what? Those musicians pay hundreds of people to do a lot of work for them; people who are working a "real" job, because their pay is guaranteed. And so people who work at "real" jobs get guaranteed pay from those big businesses that do NOT have guaranteed pay.

You see, entrepreneurs create entities that are umbrellas for people that don't have the drive, or the determination, or the desire, to start from the bottom of the mud pit. And those entities are required to provide a predictable wage to all that work for them.

Now tell me

Which is the "real" job?

The one who is taking the risk? Or the one who is getting the salary?



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I did not say on ATS, thanks for that comprehension, as I sated before explain why you think you should get paid over and over for work you did one time?

it's a simple question, if you think sharing is so bad and "we aren't in the industry so we don't know" it would be very educational to me and others to explain that point clearly. No one ever said that you have a right to get paid for your art. unless you are saying it's not art, if that is so then it doesn't fall under the copyright clause in the constitution.

I truly want to know, and no I do not share files or movies or music that is not under a CC license. I share and use linux and linux files, so I am not your enemy.
edit on 12-4-2013 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


a "real" job makes a real product, one you can take away and never get back, IP is not a real product as in real estate.

yes thousands of musicians are in middle school, highschool and college, wanna compare the number to bands on the radio and the net? really??
edit on 12-4-2013 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


a "real" job makes a real product, one you can take away and never get back, IP is not a real product as in real estate.


Really?

That's interesting.

But yet you go and work for pieces of paper, or credits (depending on your fancy). And then you go and exchange those things that possess imaginary value in for things that you deem worthy of being called products.

So you working for imaginary money.

As well;

Visual art is sold in many forms. Many tangible forms at that. The files can also be licensed online. Does the visual artist not put a lot of effort into their work (if they are good)?

And so the sonic artists does not have the exact same canvas with which they can work.

So then hear this:

Why are you not complaining about renters? Because one may rent for 10 years, and pay more than the apartment is worth, and still not retain rights to that building. But they only merely borrow the space. That land belongs to the land owner. Not that the land was created by the land owner, but the work that has been done on the land and all that pertain to that land belong to the owner. So therefore, musicians do not own sound, but rather, we own the product of that sound, how we moved it, how we mixed it, how we portray it.

It is not a bad thing if an artist wants their due rent. Like you said, it's hard to make music a physical product you can pass back and forth between hands.

But then, get in your car. Blast your radio. Then step outside of your car and shut the door. Is the sound muffled? Interesting. You're standing in the "shadow of sound"; the shadow of the sound passing through the door, just like if light was shone on the car, and left a shadow. So therefore, sound is three dimensional, it is physical, it is real.

Because it can be duplicated, all of a sudden, it is worthless?

But you see, good artists can also replicate antique paintings. But are they worth as much as the original? Are they not copies? Do you still pay for the work? Yes. Do you pay for rights to the master? No.

Or better yet!

Why do you have to keep paying for vegetables? I mean, why don't you just buy the seeds? And eat only what you make? Why do you keep having to go back and pay someone for cucumbers over and over and over?

It's the same cucumber. IT's being replicated. But you keep taking in their cucumbers. You're taking up time and energy.

And so every time a song is played, time and energy are used. Space that could have been used by something else. As well, know you not that music is not just a product, but is a means of selling the product as well? You see, music is designed to stir up emotion and to inspire. Now so therefore you understand also, that for every time an entity chooses to use that music for commercial purpose, and they profit from that purpose every-time, every-time they profited from that purpose, so should the artist, because it is their art performing the work. Do you not see that?

Now I think there is nothing wrong with understanding the industry has changed in many ways. Artists are beginning to learn that we sell tickets, and merchandise, and whatever have you.

And that merchandise is made by somebody, and somebody's livelihood is to make T-shirts and cases, and totes, and mugs, and all that stuff. And somebody's livelihood is to clean the stadiums, maintain the stadiums, to run concessions, to grow the food that ends up in concessions, and so forth and so forth.

And so many profit from the work of an artist that you claim is "royalty".

Just because some artists have a rotten attitude, or you think that someone is getting unduly paid, remember; people are willing to pay for something as much as it is worth to them. And what people will pay for, that they will get.

So therefore, if someone wants to license our songs for any reason, especially commercial reasons, then they pay for that.

How can you not understand?



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


I DO understand, take the pic in my avatar, I took it but it's not "real" until I print it. it's just ones and zeros, you could copy it. and I would still have the original. now if you sold it for say 2500$ (I've sold some of my pics for that much) I would have a problem with that. but if you copied it and showed it to someone else and they liked it or wanted some other pic like it and asked me to take a pic for them how is that a bad thing??

I ran my own PC repair shop out of my home for 8 years, I did not advertise, I told folks my rate was 50$ per hour however I would drop the price for the first hour of the repair for word of mouth advertising, on a PROMISE, no contract. I cleared between 60 and 80 thousand each year. with hardly ANY overhead and I worked alone (60 plus hours a week, but still)

that piracy is a loss has not been proven, it's "estimated" to be bad, but no firm numbers, because you can't quantify a negative. does it happen, yes, is it bad, yes, so is stealing from a store, but guess what, store PAY for their own policing, they do not have the cops go to each customers house after they leave the store to check and see if everything they have from the store is in the receipt, the store PAYS for someone to watch the customers at the store.

have you heard of the new "six strikes law"? you get accused 6 times of IP infringement and you get your net access throttled back to dial up speeds, from a third party that does not own the copyright, NOT CONVICTED, ACCUSED.

Guess who pays for such monitoring?? not the copyright holder, the ISP, which means My rate goes up for net access for something I have nothing to do with.

why can't the IP holders pay for their own policing??

Did you know Hollywood movies made record profits last year, yet they cry "piracy is killing us" RECORD PROFITS!!!

how can that be piracy is killing them?? please explain that to me??

did you know that copyright is holding music back??
edit on 12-4-2013 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-4-2013 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 


You are correct in everything you say.

And nothing you said argues with anything I said.

How does this make royalties bad?

As well, Hollywood, just like everyone else, needs to get on board and realize that they're not selling movies, but selling licenses, tickets, hard copies, merchandise, etc...

The only real problem with the "piracy" is that they aren't able yet to accurately keep track of just how many duplicates there are. They used to be able to understand their numbers better before their stuff started getting passed around like an STD.

That's all, they're just whiny about numbers.

But they're making bank. Advertisements, etc. Syndication, repeats, whatever.

Everyone knows that.

But this is show business we're talking about. People in show-business, or any business, for that matter, all glorify everything and over-dramaticize, and make bigger, and meaner, and uglier, or prettier, and shinier, and glitteryierish..? for their own purposes. No one is saying that the industry as a whole is not full of liars.

Sure they are.

As well, you are right. You can make good money on someone's word of mouth advertising. What's wrong with that?

Now you are in the business of selling "masters" more than copies (or at least, that seems to be what you implied). Only songwriters do that in the industry. And yeah, they make "humble" livings, usually.

But I do see the reasoning in the royalties. It makes sense when you realize that there is no guaranteed pay.

But otherwise, where are we disagreeing? Good job for all that you're doing!



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
the issue I have is not so much with royalties as much as the companies that are not paying them, or that they are using the monies for making BAD LAWS, at the expense of MY RIGHTS.

Do I think artists should get royalties, sure, bot not for "Life of the author, plus 75 years" anything you or I create cannot be used by anyone or put in the public domain during the lifetime of the customer (fan) that is not fair. you could make one song/movie/picture and never have incentive to create again, that is the Opposite of what copyright was intended.


don't you think 25 years is long enough to get paid for a piece of work? Why should my grandkids get monies for MY work? ( what of I don't like them?)

what happens if the company that owns your copyright goes bankrupt thru mismanagement ? what happens to your royalties then?


why shouldn't the artist just get an upfront flat fee? whats wrong with that?

remember "art for arts sake" I've never seen nor heard of "art for profits sake" (but I sure have seen a lot of music and movies like that)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
the issue I have is not so much with royalties as much as the companies that are not paying them, or that they are using the monies for making BAD LAWS, at the expense of MY RIGHTS.

Do I think artists should get royalties, sure, bot not for "Life of the author, plus 75 years" anything you or I create cannot be used by anyone or put in the public domain during the lifetime of the customer (fan) that is not fair. you could make one song/movie/picture and never have incentive to create again, that is the Opposite of what copyright was intended.


don't you think 25 years is long enough to get paid for a piece of work? Why should my grandkids get monies for MY work? ( what of I don't like them?)

what happens if the company that owns your copyright goes bankrupt thru mismanagement ? what happens to your royalties then?


why shouldn't the artist just get an upfront flat fee? whats wrong with that?

remember "art for arts sake" I've never seen nor heard of "art for profits sake" (but I sure have seen a lot of music and movies like that)



You've got me sold.
Where do I sign?



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Here are my reasons for the fall in music sales over the last 20 years.

1. The advent and increasing popularity of the video game industry.
2. Low fidelity music play back hardware - digital just doesn't compare to analog in terms of music fidelity.
3. Musical artistic quality has drastically decreased over the last 20 to 25 years.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


What the hell are you talking about? You obviously have no absolutely no idea about the music industry. Much like most of the armchair commentators posting in this thread... In the real world, all of the things I listed are necessary expenses for a touring band. I haven't even included things like fuel, food and equipment hire!



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I defy anyone to name one single internationally touring musical artist/band who doesn't use a manager, a booking agent and/or a publicist in some way, shape or form. Simply by having to spend so much time on flights means you're going to be unreachable a lot of the time, which makes it impossible to manage a band.
edit on 12-4-2013 by NeuronDivide because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I am going to lead with a disclaimer to prevent any appearance of attacking or belittling or being arguementitive.....

I do not have a cd produced anywhere in the world.
(and if the world was smart, they should send me royalties for everytime I do NOT sing publically)


I have only two points to make,...

1 - The music industry, more specifically, the live venue's like concerts, for years banned camcorders from being used in concerts. Phone cameras made this issue huge,...until someone finally figured out it sold tickets and cd's by letting it happen freely.

2 - I look at the music industry no different than the movie industry. And not all movies make money. Some just flop. Maybe for a reason. But the accountants for those movies that pull in a billion dollars at the box office, spend many sleepless nights trying to find ways to say they are loosing money on the deal.


The industry does not have clean hands. The big outfits have down right filthy hands.
edit on 12-4-2013 by smirkley because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join