kool kat2

I go to concerts, I buy their shirts and stuff.... But buying actual tracks from these legit sources gives 99.9% of that 99¢ to the record labels and whatnot????? Jeez, might as well buy bootlegs and not miss a concert....

kool kat2

Michael Jackson had to bid for the rights to his own music??? Smh...................

Yea, im not very aware of many things

argedion

not so much to use it himself but to grant others that they could use it. Yes the "Music" world is very different than many think. I also was surprised when I learned that ususally the record company purchases the copyrites and if the song does very well they turn around and sell them to the highest bidders. While most of the money the band makes on "album sales" goes to pay back the record industry for the copies of records and the distribution cost. It also helps them get money to afford to start investing in road equipment.

__________________
Asking simple questions can keep us from doing dumb things.
Help BabyBlues save the ta ta's

kool kat2

So, for anyone wondering about this site, I made the jump on it today and the way it works is you have to purchase a certain amount of "credits" of some sort. I bought $10. I was directed to paypal and made the transaction and i checked up on my paypal account and everything was legit. Now im enjoying seemingly endless amounts of music. Thanks IOWA

MeepMeepChu

Wait, so selling something at 5% of an artificially inflated price is illegal now?

Dark Jedi

I think vh1 behind the music of tlc shows how crooked the record labels are. Also many bands on tour has to use their share of the ticket sales to pay for the tour. All the personnel and so on before they see a dime. Why many bands sells t shirts at concerts as they get all the money from the sales minus the costs to pay for the making of the shirts.

It say illegal downloads you are stealing from the bands. Mostly you are stealing from the labels as they sown the majority of the points from a CD sale. The band may get one point if lucky.

I now see why artists goes in to producing. They learned that's where the real money is. To sponge off the sweat of others. There's no real money to be made from being in a band. Unless your the Beatles or stones or Metallica. To get that superstar dome you have a better chance of getting struck by lighting 10 times in a row standing in the same spot.

Legal or not who really cares. If they want to use the site more power to them. Downloading from that site is no different than buying something at a yard sale or flea market. You have no idea if its stolen merchandise or not till after the fact when you get that knock on the door.

mikedt

Probably....because the US music stores want to protect their pricing cartel. Even though the site is apparently in Australia and not subject to United States laws.

__________________
The People's Guide to Android in the People's Republic.
Honorary Grand Poobah Shenzhen University English Corner.
http://welcometomychina.tumblr.com/
There are nine million bicycles in Beijing.
There are nine million Androids in Shenzhen.

Last edited by mikedt; February 14th, 2012 at 06:16 PM.

IOWA

That's the beauty of it, it's not illegal. As long as the collection societies are getting thier "cut" of the profits, who are they to tell someone how much to sell it for? I bet they agreed to some sort of percentage of sales, and they never imagined selling things so cheaply. Unlike here in the states, they can't force the Aussies to sell things at grossly inflated prices.

__________________
Useful links: The Rules | The Team | FAQ | Unanswered Threads | My LTEvo Review.

donating is the easy part. BabyBlues actually has to do the walking!

mikedt

Thing is here in China, Google.cn gives music away, millions of MP3s. All completely legal and with the record labels' approvals. It's an ad-supported service, and Google pays a proportion of the ad-revenue to the record companies.

If I were to burn a few Google.cn free songs onto a CD or email the MP3s to my friend in the USA, would I be infringing copyright, and the RIAA be on my tail? Any more than if I were to buy a music CD in China, and physically mail it to my friend in the US? IANAL but I'm sure is completely legal.

The Google.cn free music service is only available in mainland China(PRC). But there's nothing to stop anyone in the USA, or anywhere else, from using a Chinese proxy or VPN to access it, completely legal.
??????

If you ever got SOPA in the US, they'd only have to allege a foreign site like Ivave or LegalSounds is unlawful or they just didn't like it, then it would be censored and blocked, end of.

Last edited by mikedt; February 15th, 2012 at 06:29 AM.

pbf98

Well I did a search for AC/DC and it actually came back with results, so that tells me there is something up..
I am an AC/DC fanatic.. My collection is quite big, and I know quite a bit about them past to present. One of those things I know about them is that the band in the entirety absolutely refuses to allow sales of their music online as downloads.. The only way they sell their music online is if you purchase an actual CD that will be shipped to your address. This is why you cannot find them in iTunes, Rhapsody, Google Music, Spotify, etc...

So this site is fishy to me

mikedt

That's interesting because AC/DC's catalogue is available for free download from Google China music though, with the approval of Warner Music Group, AC/DC's record label. Also iTunes, Rhapsody, Google Music, Spotify, are all USA music stores. Perhaps AC/DC doesn't want their music available for download in that country?

downeaststudio

I'm a professional artist and know how small the royalties can. For what I do, it's anywhere between 2-4%. So if one copy of my work sells for $1.25 I get 5¢ at the most. Now if the company I have contacted with to sell and distribute my work decides to contract with any another company to sell my work even cheaper, I get even less. Now there's nothing I can do if my distributor decides to sell my work in agreement with another company, but if everyone starts buying licensed material at a cheaper price I think you will see fewer and fewer artists in the world. And add everyone knows, a world without art is a very grey world indeed. Just imagine everyone's phones with a grey scale screen!

Bob Maxey

Do not obfuscate. It does not matter one darn bit that someone is distributing AC/DC stuff legally. WMG/Google/iTunes have the right to distribute their music. AC/DC and their management and who ever else is involved apparently worked a deal.

Are you seriously trying to say that because iTunes can do it/does do it, it is legal for anyone else to do it?

By the way, iTunes paid a bunch of money--tens of millions of dollars--to the Beatles so Apple could make the Beatles catalog available.

mikedt

Who's obfuscating? I was just mentioning that AC/DC's music can be legally downloaded where I am. After it was suggested that a site that has AC/DC music is illegal. AFAIK it's all available from the Russian music sites as well, e.g. LegalSounds.

If it's not available from United States music stores, presumably that is because they don't want it available in that country, thus forcing their American fans to buy CDs. Maybe AC/DC are happy for The Pirate Bay to be their online music distributor in the USA?

What I don't get is why would AC/DC be against selling their songs online anyway? Are they so rich that they're content with CD sales only? I mean they've been around for a heck of a long time.

Last edited by mikedt; February 17th, 2012 at 05:02 PM.

downeaststudio

Should the issue really be about legality or illegality or about how much the entire business hurts the artists...?

IOWA

I hate to tell you this, but the "there will be no artists" angle has been debunked many times by many different people. Once upon a time art was created just to be created, not for monetary gain. Artists are going to go away, ever.

mikedt

That's going completely the other way IMO. Surely artists do have to live and be paid for their work? It's their day job so to speak. I mean Leonardo da Vinci didn't do all those great works just for the love it did he? I'm quite sure he must have been paid for the Mona Lisa. I think Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart must have been paid for all their hard work as well.

But then they were not dealing with greedy mega-corporations like Warner, Sony, BMG or EMI, being paid a fraction of what they're entitled to, they were selling their own works. To quote @downeaststudio "For what I do, it's anywhere between 2-4%. So if one copy of my work sells for $1.25 I get 5¢ at the most."

Last edited by mikedt; February 17th, 2012 at 06:05 PM.

downeaststudio

Yeah, so if copies of my work started being sold (and purchased) at 5¢ a piece, instead of $1.25, my cut would be 0.002¢. And no, that's not a typo.
Are you guys really gonna support a music website that clearly hurts the people that work hard to write and produce their art? In essence, you're hurting the very economy of the US which is hurting too much to begin with.

downeaststudio

BTW, do you really think Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel for free...? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.... Um, no.... He was commissioned by the Pope! Which means he was paid to do it!

IOWA

Hurts the artists how? By giving them a sensible alternative to the pirate bay? By promoting their works in such a fashion that more people are going to show up to the more profitable concerts? More people will buy more profitable merchandise?

downeaststudio

Well, when a website is selling their work at a gigantic fraction of the cost who is taking the loss? Is it the artist, is it the record label, is it the company distributing the music on that website, who?
I can't imagine any distributor, here, or in a foreign country being able to consistently offer such a huge discount like that without someone else taking a loss.
Can you assure me that the artist is going to get their FULL royalty from that sale? Are the "greedy record labels" going to take the loss?
I'd really be interested in finding that out.

Last edited by downeaststudio; February 17th, 2012 at 09:11 PM. Reason: misspelling

kool kat2

I think its worth noting that 5¢ is an introductory price. At least that's what the site says

downeaststudio

I do understand what you are saying though, to get a little but is better than none at all, but if we are buying our merchandise from China, Russia, Japan, etc., who gets the money?
Does it stay in the US, or does it go elsewhere?

downeaststudio

I know that if someone said to me that they were going to sell more of my work but give me less money, I'd be livid...

IOWA

What loss are you talking about? The infinite good that doesn't cost ANYTHING to reproduce? Simple economics. Supply and Demand.

It only makes sense that with infinite supply....well hopefully you can do the math and not be stuck in the 1960's. One way or another digital media is going to shift in this direction. Or, people won't pay for it. Which would you rather have?

downeaststudio

Yes, you're right, it is simple economics. You're not doing the math right. I don't have a problem with digital media, I love it. But typical royalties are based on the sale price of the product. For example, you buy a song for $1, right? The artist gets 4¢ from that sale if his royalty is 4%. Now you buy the same song somewhere else for 5¢, the artists royalty stays the same, 4%. So from that sale he gets 0.002¢. Five cents versus two thousandths of a cent, which would YOU rather have?
Hit what i'm saying now?
It's not the way the product is sold that I have a problem with, it's people that think that undercutting others is ok.

downeaststudio

Oh, and by the way, digital media still costs something to reproduce. Someone still has to set up the program to reproduce it. Someone still has to market it. Someone still has to upload it into the server where others can buy it. The stuff just doesn't appear out of thin air....

IOWA

1.) Once those mechanisms are put into place, those items can be replicated at no cost, ergo infinite supply.

2.) Items are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. The only thing that has kept the antiquated media distribution business model alive is legislation that hurts people, the economy, and yes even the artists. If this draconian copyright laws were passed 10 years ago, you wouldn't be posting here. We wouldn't have broadband. No broadband = no YouTube and other discovery outlets. The Independent artist would be vastly obscure rather than how it is today, where people can post videos on YouTube and instantly monetize off views, and a little hard work. No need for labels. Christina Grimmie instantly comes to mind, who is touring with Selena Gomez, and is an independent artist who doesn't have a label, the way it should be IMO.

3.) Once an "Artist" signs over the rights to a song/album for a record deal, he/she has no say in how it's sold, or for how much, unless it's provided in the contract, and ALL contracts.

4.) Despite what you and others think, we already live in a global economy. The internet ensures that. Therefore things are only worth the lowest common denominator, especially digital items that can be shipped instantaneously over the internet for virtually no cost, and reproduced at will the same way.

In other words, get with the times. Charging for digital media is going to go away eventually, and it's time to do away with the 1800's method of thinking that digital media is somehow even remotely comparable to physical media of the old days.

And no offense sir, my math is just fine. Your expectations are what's wrong. There are no guarantees in life, why should the price of digital music be any different? What's 4% of nothing? Oh right...

EDIT:

FYI, "undercutting" has been a part of business since the dawn of time.

If you don't like "undercutting" then I hope you don't shop at Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Bargain food chains, or any other Big Box retailers, because that's their main business model.

Last edited by lunatic59; February 18th, 2012 at 12:24 PM. Reason: removed rude remark

mikedt

Here's a real scenario, a country where online piracy is rampant, there's no real desire to pay for downloaded music, and the main way to legalize and monetize downloaded music is banner adverts on websites and adware media player software. Most people seem to download their music from Baidu MP3. How much does the artist make then, if the record label is taking a 96% cut? Not a lot, I bet.

Apple does operate an iTunes Music Store in mainland China, but it requires a Visa or Mastercard credit-card, most people here don't have those and you have to be quite rich to get one. I think it's around 99 cents(USD) a song that they charge, which by Chinese standards is extremely expensive. Also it's actually quite hard to find AC/DC CDs where I am.

Last edited by mikedt; February 18th, 2012 at 02:44 AM.

mikedt

They were talking about this the other day on CCTV News as Xi Jinping, the Chinese VP, was in the US all week. They used the Apple iPhone as an example. They basically said that if an American consumer buys a US brand like Apple, most of the money does actually stay in the US with Apple, some of that goes in tax to the US Govt, although the jobs to actually make the iPhones are in China. On the other hand if a US consumer buys a Chinese brand like Huawei or Lenovo, most of their dollars goes to China.

Last edited by mikedt; February 18th, 2012 at 03:05 AM.

IOWA

Very insightful sir!

lunatic59

As with any controversial topic, it can be difficult to maintain a level head in these discussions. Let's try anyway and not make personal comments or assume what a member does understand or doesn't.

__________________
_
If the information is useful, Like the post, if the person was helpful, Thank the member.
RULES: Lest we forget | This part of signature intentionally left blank.
______________________________________________

Support Breast Cancer Research: BabyBlues Breast Cancer Pledge

downeaststudio

'Nuff said....

Last edited by downeaststudio; February 19th, 2012 at 12:47 AM. Reason: image not working

mikedt

^^^^^^^^

Just seeing "Image Hosted by Tripod", they probably don't allow embedding of their images.

downeaststudio

Well, that stinks... It was there earlier.... It's on my studio's website server... I don't know why it's not working anymore...

downeaststudio

There, I think I fixed it...

IOWA

Who said anything about working for free? All I said is adapt to the market, or get left behind. I've had to change professions because of a market shift, and I realized what was already taking place. In fact, you can call me an "artist" too. A digital artist.

The difference between me and you? I realized the market was shifting whether I like it or not. And regardless of your beliefs, things are only worth what the market is willing to pay for them.

Adapt, or be left behind.

mikedt

In the US, you can hopefully sell your songs for a buck each, assuming people don't want to use lower priced foreign music stores or simply just BitTorrent them. Which is exactly what a musician/composer friend of mine does, sells his songs directly on iTunes, gets all the proceeds, minus Apple's commission. There's Jonathan Coulton, a very successful independent artist. He's not dealing with any greedy old-skool record labels taking 96% cuts. Then there's China, where you basically have to give your music away, in return for ad revenue.

Last edited by mikedt; February 19th, 2012 at 04:24 AM.

downeaststudio

Well, help me understand something then Iowa. You said that shortly the only thing that's going to exist is digital media, and that no one is going to pay for it... So if that's true, how are the artists going to make any money?

Bob Maxey

Some/many of these artists, music is both a love and a way to put groceries in the pantry. True artists--whatever they are--will still create. But for some, we are talking about their livelihood.

Bob Maxey

Denny's perhaps. Always a way to make money. Those artists do not need revenue; the bastards create music for fun, so how dare they try to make a buck. We all know it is the MPA/RIAA's fault. Greedy fools how dare they infringe on the rights of you and me to have free music.

downeaststudio

Lol. I don't have a problem with hard work either.... I also have a full time job on top of selling my art. Heck, everybody knows that that's no steady income...
I don't have a problem with adapting to the changes in the market either. That's why I signed up with a company to distribute my work. Yeah sure I take a huge loss doing things that way, but they do all the advertising, selling, printing, and distributing for me. Catch 22 I guess...

IOWA

Build a fan base. Connect with your fans. Give them a reason to buy. Merchandising. Did you know the vast majority of Musical Artists make 90%+ of their income from endorsements, merchandise, and concerts?

Interesting isn't it? Some artists even giving their art away from free have saw significant returns. How? Well for starters, getting something free is a great way to try it and build fans. There are a million and one ways to make money as an artist, all you have to do is pick one, or two, or three, whatever suits your fancy.

And signing with a company for "distribution"... that's not exactly what I'd call adapting to the market. That' an old, tired, and fading system...

downeaststudio

Actually I've done that too. I've given a lot of work to charity for fund raising and have gotten a tremendous return as a result. However you can't give everything away for free you know? And signing up with a distributor is actually a smart idea for an artist, as the art world is changing. No one collects art anymore. But having the distributor helps me reach an expanded market and gets me into places I couldn't get into before. So even though in your mind it's an old, tired, fading system, it actually makes perfect sense.

downeaststudio

Right now the current trend in the art market is to license your work out to companies that will put your work on stuff like souvenirs, magnets, greeting cards, calendars, etc. So actually that is adapting to the market, and that's what I've done.

MeepMeepChu

Just to make sure, you're referring to visual arts here, right?

the reason I ask is it's a whole different animal from audio/video. First of all, as you said, people don't collect it. You have to make quality work and sell them to the few who want it at a high-ish(compared to the costs of audiovisual industry anyway) price to stay afloat. In the music business, the way to profit is selling a copy to every member of the population if you can manage it.

The current trend with audiovisual works seems to be you sign with a RIAA affiliate, giving them copyright over your work in the process. and they sell the product while giving you 2% of the cut. Then you pay them for permission to use your own work (since they now own the copyright) to go on concert tours where you stand a chance at actually making some money.

Who says this 5c site pays the artist only 2%? With such a low sale price, they can easily make 30 times the sales of $1 sites. Now, since the cost of maintaining a server and bandwidth is a flat rate, maximizing the number of sales means they get all their costs covered (esp since all they do is provide server space and manage finances), and the artist can easily get more money than they would from their local RIAA affiliate.

I looked into Russian copyright law a little bit and IANAL but AFAICT, Russia's law doesn't recognize the ability for someone to own a copyright other than the creator of the work while that creator still lives. So again, AFAICT, the reason that article from the New york times or whatever calls the legality of that site into question is because as far as Russia is concerned, the copyright holder is whoever created it, and not RIAA.

And you know what? I'm pretty sure no argument can be made on the basis of morality as to why RIAA isn't getting the money it needs to expand its C-level excecutives' paychecks is bad.


Also, I'm pretty sure Leonardo DaVinci died in poverty because he wasn't able to pay people to take his works off his hands, yet he still painted.

downeaststudio

It's pretty much the same with visual arts. If you license your work out, you're giving that company the right to use your copyrighted material. They in turn give you a percentage of the profit. They in turn mass produce your work and distribute it on stuff like greeting cards, mugs, calendars, etc.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, or that you shouldn't buy you're music from these sites. I'm just saying that we need to think before we do things that's all. As I've already, I have no idea who pays the musician. Is it the record label, or is it the person distributing the music? I believe it's the record label.
So what I'm trying to figure out is if an album or a song is sold for a fraction of the usual cost, who eats the cost? Is there a wholesale price on music?

IOWA

Eat's what cost? You're not getting it...

THERE IS NO COST!

kool kat2

I think he was saying the price of 5c vs 99c. Someone is obviously getting paid less.I would imagine the artists AND record labels are getting screwed over this way (you know, compared to iTunes) .

Now me, I honestly wouldn't have bought the music that I got from this site anywhere else. If I did, I'd be looking at about 300+ .I'd rather listen to the damn radio. In this case,some profit is going back. Now if everyone who didnt buy music before began to buy from sites that sold music for less, the profit would add up.

IOWA

My point exactly. Prices on digital media have been hyper inflated for too long, which is why napster blew up like it did back in the 90's. Now imagine if the labels adapted to this business model, they'd squash piracy in an instant.