A disruptive point of interest ???

[madswitcher]

I have a friend in the recording industry who posed the following question after several beers.  His implication being that we have all been conned on new media releases and re-issues for years.

An artists makes an album (let's say a vinyl) and it is published.  Part of it (lets say X%) goes as costs of the media and overheads etc.,  and part of it (Y%) goes as royalties to the artists in recognition of their performance.

The album is now published in a different format - lets say a CD - where we have X and Y as above, but maybe  differing values.  However, the artist has alreday been paid for his performance and the overheads such as studio time have also been paid

Therefore, as a consumer, you should legally only have to pay the cost of the new media and its associated production overheads as the artists has already been paid for their performance. 

So should you be able to go into a music shop and state that you only want to pay for the new media?

What is the implication for royalties on downloads?

Interesting ?

Thoughts/comments

Is this old hat?

Mike

 

[scott2000]

I'd gladly pay more just to have a music shop. again anyway....... :-\

 

[pucho812]

You should read "what have they done to my art" by walter e. sear. It will explain in some of these issues in detail. It might be 20 years old but  it still is relevant.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

However, the artist has alreday been paid for his performance

Artists, producers, editors, record companies have continuous rights that constitute the main part of the cost of a record. They continue to get royalties long after they have finished the production of the record.

 

[MagnetoSound]

What is the implication for royalties on downloads?

Royalties on downloads!   that's funny!

 

[scott2000]

Royalties on downloads!   that's funny!

Is it a silly amount that artists are compensated when all said and done??

I have a paid Google Play Music  account..... Wonder how this and the other subscription services work this out...... I used to have a Spotify subscription.....

I was always under the impression that performances or appearances is where anyone really made any living as an artist anyhow....

 

[MagnetoSound]

Mechanical royalties on physical sales were typically in the order of a few points back in the day - say a couple of pennies or cents per copy for the author/composer. From what I've seen, the equivalent royalty on downloads is a fraction of this, in the order of tenths of a penny per sale.

Publishing royalties (broadcast airplay and so on) may still be reasonable if you get an ad placement or a big hit, but don't go expecting to live on download returns or you'll end up the wiser for it.

Performance is the way most of today's artists get by, but you need a good team to provide the enforcement needed, and that ain't cheap either.

 

[desol]

I think, I read recently....that Kobalt(fairly new?) is paying artists much higher royalties, per play than many of the other services.

https://www.kobaltmusic.com

 

[PRR]

Go back to the dawn of recording.

A live musician could choose to get paid EVERY time he played.

Then came records. Play for pay once, get re-played forever for free.

AFM had a big problem with this. There's no magic answer. But some musicians (or agents) get some money for every copy sold.

I do not see how the media matters? If you sell a million LPs, you can only get 100,000 pressings off one stamper. By your friend's argument, the next 900,000 pressings (or CDs) are "re-release" and not worth paying for??

Anyway: historically, 90% of records don't cover their costs. It is (was) the OVER-profit on the 10% that sold well which kept the machine running. Janis Joplin's hits funded Candy Givens' remainders/cutouts.

 

[fazer]

Candy Givens' remainders/cutouts.

Are you referring to Candy Givens from the band Zephyr?