RIAA wants to cut artist royalties from 13% down to 9%...

Ruffyreborn said:
http://gear.ign.com/articles/849/849695p1.html

Ridiculous. I dont know why the artists themselves arent being paid at least half of the money anyway.
Click to expand...


At least half? You do know that most artists write their own stuff and have very little musical talent outside of being able to MAYBE sing well? If they didn't take the song, it would just be made by someone else. I'm not saying they shouldn't be getting their 13% or maybe even 20%, but half? That is pushing it.
 
Lanien said:
At least half? You do know that most artists write their own stuff and have very little musical talent outside of being able to MAYBE sing well? If they didn't take the song, it would just be made by someone else. I'm not saying they shouldn't be getting their 13% or maybe even 20%, but half? That is pushing it.
Click to expand...

I dunno, in my mind, being a producer shouldnt net you much more money than the artist. More times than not, the effort/costs to produce the stuff doesnt cost near as much as the money they receive.

I dunno, Im looking at the music industry sort of like I look at the film industry.
 
Ruffyreborn said:
More times than not, the effort/costs to produce the stuff doesnt cost near as much as the money they receive.
Click to expand...
That's because the company's are out to make a profit. If they weren't, there would only be a very tiny fraction of the music that's out there now, and only by the people who love it enough to create it at a loss.
 
Bajaratt said:
That's because the company's are out to make a profit. If they weren't, there would only be a very tiny fraction of the music that's out there now, and only by the people who love it enough to create it at a loss.
Click to expand...

No, music would still be just as big. Here, we can see how bands can make more of a profit themselves while being more user-friendly.

(just slightly off topic)

http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/nine-inch-nails-album-download-free-ghosts/

I dont like NIN, but I like what they, along with others, are doing.
 
Aren't artists already paying all the bills for music videos ,adverts, etc etc?
Artists already go bankrupt from all the stuff the company isn't responsible for paying even if they do make a hit record or 5.
If anything slashing pay like that seems like it can cause an inevitable backlash. Eventually enough artists will realize it's cheaper to cut out the record company and make it themselves.
The only reason many songs become hits is because the companies "donate" cash to the radio stations to hype the music up.(they actually pay another guy to do the donations instead which somehow turns it from illegal to legal.) Yes this isn't some conspiracy theory. It was something i saw on 60 minutes a few years ago.
 
Ruffyreborn said:
No, music would still be just as big. Here, we can see how bands can make more of a profit themselves while being more user-friendly.

(just slightly off topic)

http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/nine-inch-nails-album-download-free-ghosts/

I dont like NIN, but I like what they, along with others, are doing.
Click to expand...
No, music would be no where close to what it is today without companies making a profit off of it. It'd still exist, but in a significantly smaller and much more local/personal form. You wouldn't have the "rockstar" mentality if they were always losing money making music; and that's what the vast majority of the new artists the last few decades have been about, they want to be rock stars(or their genre's equivalent). I'm not saying they don't enjoy music or love what they do, they just wouldn't be doing it full time or likely at all if they weren't making money off of it.

That's like saying computers would still be just as advanced if companies like intel and IBM didn't exist because they couldn't turn a profit. Or cars/cell phones would still be everywhere if the company's were always selling everything at a loss. Music makes money, which is why there are so many big companies producing it; which is why the music industry has grown so much during the last century.

Bands might be able to make money without the corporate machine, but it's incredibly naive to think that the music industry would be anywhere near as big as it is today without that machine driving it.
 
Last edited:
Bajaratt said:
Bands might be able to make money without the corporate machine, but it's incredibly naive to think that the music industry would be anywhere near as big as it is today without that machine driving it.
Click to expand...

These next few years will tell.

Music wont just die, its everywhere. It would be just as big without the record labels. Its not exactly smart to think that music/bands would just disappear because they go solo.
 
Ruffyreborn said:
These next few years will tell.
Click to expand...
If you could actually read, you'd know by now that anything in the future is completely irrelevant to what I've been talking about.

Music wont just die, its everywhere. It would be just as big without the record labels. Its not exactly smart to think that music/bands would just disappear because they go solo.
Click to expand...
I had a great post, full of sarcasm and wit; but I lost it and I'm too lazy to type it up again, so I'll just be more direct:

You're not reading what I'm saying. The music business is a business, hence why it's called the "music business." If they didn't turn a profit, they wouldn't stay in the business for long. Because they have been making profit for decades, they have grown the music industry into what it is today. No one would keep producing a product that is costing them money with no hope of repayment; and very, very few people would even try to enter into that kind of market. I don't know where you got the retarded idea that me saying the music business turning a profit is what drove them to create the industry as it is today, and you thinking that I'm saying an artist can't be successful solo; but I'm willing to bet it has something to do with a lack of intelligence on your part. That or you just can't read, but it could be both.

Also, it is only recently that there has been a mechanism for an artist to distribute their music to a non-local audience; so the fact that they can do it now has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been talking about as well. Since there was no internet 20 years ago, there was no myspace, there was only the music companies. THEY are the ones that created the industry as it is now; it doesn't matter that an artist can go solo now, they wouldn't even have existed without the company in the first place.

And that's my whole point, which you don't even seem to be able to grasp. Without the company's pushing to generate more profit, the industry would be an incredibly tiny fraction of what it is today. No one stays in business when they're losing money on their product, so none of the artists today would be as big, or hell they probably wouldn't even be, if it wasn't for a company trying to make some profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top