who I'd REALLY like to get the stick is the R*I*A*A
Hey man, a lawyer (or 2, or 2,000,000) has to eat too, ya know?I'm in the music business, and I agree with you. They are overcharging the customers, and at the same time not paying the publishers and songwriters a high enough royalty for selling their music.
Thanks for the details. I know the artists have always gotten the short end of it but it's interesting to know how short.I'm in the music business, and I agree with you. They are overcharging the customers, and at the same time not paying the publishers and songwriters a high enough royalty for selling their music.
I own a music publishing company, and for the 99 cents that the iTunes store charges for music that I own the copyright to, I only get 9.1 cents for each sale, which my company then splits with the particular songwriter. And the other 90 cents? Probably split between the record company and the vendor (Apple). Ridiculous if you ask me. The owner of the music should profit more than the middle men.
The owner of the music should profit more than the middle men.
^^^^^^
Apple fan.
Surur
Apple only sees 4 cents for every song sold. This is used to cover logistics, delivery and server maintenance. Something like a half-cent above breaking even.I'm in the music business, and I agree with you. They are overcharging the customers, and at the same time not paying the publishers and songwriters a high enough royalty for selling their music.
I own a music publishing company, and for the 99 cents that the iTunes store charges for music that I own the copyright to, I only get 9.1 cents for each sale, which my company then splits with the particular songwriter. And the other 90 cents? Probably split between the record company and the vendor (Apple). Ridiculous if you ask me. The owner of the music should profit more than the middle men.
Why, aren't they doing all the work in moving the product?
It doesn't seem much different from other industries. How does the literary world work?
Artists are always whining about not getting enough, but in the end all they do is create a single product. Someone else has to market it, package it, have infrastructure set for moving it. If the artists wants a bigger share then all he/she has to do is take over all of the process.
Why, aren't they doing all the work in moving the product?
It doesn't seem much different from other industries. How does the literary world work?
Artists are always whining about not getting enough, but in the end all they do is create a single product. Someone else has to market it, package it, have infrastructure set for moving it. If the artists wants a bigger share then all he/she has to do is take over all of the process. I'd like to see artists themselves offer online album downloads and BYPASS the DRM people!! I'm not sure the labels would go for this though.
Over charging? I consider it a steal. 99c for a song? It's 1000x more convenient than going to a record store and less expensive before you even consider all of the associated costs (gas, time, etc.). Would be nice if the artists saw more of the .99 cents. Plus it's not a real bargain when the consumer cannot use the songs on any player or computer they wish. You can still do that with CDs by ripping to NON DRM formats.
as to iTunes, if you don't like the system you don't have to use it. There are plenty of alternatives out there. NO there are not because they are ALL DRM!!!Why is it that 99% of the people seem happy with the apple arrangement? Because it works just fine.More like many people are sheep. I consider my ipod and itunes to be 2 halves of a music system. That's the problem right there! And the same goes for WMA DRM too!
Hhmm. We should revisit your thoughts in a a couple of months. And I'll let you direct this "fairy tale" question at me personally.I wouldn't mind a DRM that ensured that I didn't share music I paid for with people who didn't pay for it. I abhor the current state of DRM that says not only can I not share it with other people, but I can only play it on a device sold by the seller of the music.
Nobody would tolerate buying CDs or DVDs that could only be played on the vendors own player. Why do we tolerate it with mp3 and other downloadable formats?
It's a total crock, but think about how much money the RIAA and individual record labels (and Apple and Microsoft) spend lobbying Congress, and how much they donate to campaign committees. Think it's going to change any time soon? If so, you believe in fairy tales.
DRM=less freedom. Plain and simple. CDs are still the way to go if you want control over music you paid money for. Obviously, respect copyrights and don't use for commercial broadcasts. But for personal use, I'd like to put my music I bought on any player I choose!
DRM is the price of doing business when ppl insist on cheating via "filesharing" etc. Oh PLEASE!!! People have been trading and copying music for YEARS!! Ever use a record player with a tape player attached, so you could tape the record? It's old school, but we did that back in the day. Yes, I'm kind of old.
A songwriter only gets a small %? Big deal. He/She is no different than a writer, singer, etc. In the end, it's a free world. If they want a higher % they are free to go into biz for themselves, find artists, publishing mediums, and build all the infrastructure necessary to move the product. So much for your support of the artists!
the success of iTunes & iPod has nothing to do with ppl being sheep. That's rediculous. NOT ridiculous. MANY people somehow think the iPod is the be all and end all of MP3 players and do not look at anything else objectively. THAT'S being a sheep to a brand, whether you like the word or not! They have succeeded because they put out a product that the market wants and pays for. They have expertly determined the cost the market will bare in their products. iPod is a genius product driven by outstanding marketing. What's wrong with that? I'm not against the iPod itself. I have 2 BTW and will probably get another OR maybe the new Zune when it comes out because AAC is a very good music format. Additionally there are plenty of software titles out there that allow you to move music from your ipod to any computer.And why doesn't iTunes itself allow this? DRM paranoia? :evil: Even the new iTunes allows sycing with two computers.And WinAmp lets you do WAY more than iTunes.
...and in the end, as you know, you can pull the drm off the song, by burning and reimporting without violating fairplay. DRM is a necessary evil to rightly prevent the likes of the original Napster. And did you know there's a burn limit? If you bought the song, why isn't it really yours STILL? Is it a hassle? Maybe, but you can always purchase a cd if you don't like it. No one is forcing you to use iTunes, subscription based stuff, etc. True, but the restriction even on music that I paid money for make me want to go search for CDs all over again. I can see restrictions on subscription music, but not the stuff I PAID for!