The convicted price fixers lose again !!

[jolo]

Hurrah for MIT, the federal judge and for U.S. citizens.

In the following link, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=5&u=/pcworld/20030811/tc_pcworld/111956, a federal judge tells the RIAA what the law is and that schools cannot open their databases and give out names of students. It is illegal, one of the most basic privacy rights is that kids in school, of all levels, cannot have their names given out to corporate entities or anyone else.

They are sooooo stupid. First they are guilty of some serious price fixing, on the average of $5.00 per CD or record and making stoires limited "imports", meaning independent record companies to have their music sold in stores, now they want to remove all rights of privacy.

Please RIAA, let it go. The music industry belongs to the artists and their listening public, not renegade corporate executives. Let ALL music be available in a fair and open market place where the prices will float as the demand goes. Let companies compete for the music buyers business by enhancing their networks and selection, and PLEASE, let the artists make some decent money for once. That is besides Madonna, Shakira, Rappers, and the other one or two marketing sensations.

One more item, due ot the fact that the RIAA is allowed to harrass ISPs, this costs the ISPs, who margins are so low anyway, a ton of money. It is wonderful that some of them are fighting back on this, but the end result will be that you and I will be paying higher Internet fees shortly !! RIAA, they screw artists, other industries, taxpayers and their customers.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[thayne]

Too bad Comcast doesn't do anything about this, they just roll over and hand them (RIAA) anything they request. Maybe some of the comcast customer's who had their info turned over should sue!

[Reaper88]

The RIAA must just be blind. I mean colleges, some ISP's and even some congressmen are fighting them. Cant they see that it is not just the people who DL on P2P that are out raged at their actions. People who are not even getting sued are going after them. You would think that they would figure out what they are doing is not the way to go. They (RIAA) aparently didn't think this thru.

[jolo]

thayne
I think it also be a great idea for Comcast customers to inform Comcast about how they are not happy about this. It als would be great to have people let them know and leave Comcast.
If Comcast sees their revenue being lowered and their custom base unhappy, I guarantee, they will suddenly have a voice against the RIAA.

Reaper88,
The RIAA has had most things go their way, or partially their way. It does appear that finally people are writing their legislative representation and educating them on the problem. Don't forget big money from the RIAA is being thrown at them and their consituencies must let them know what they think.
I do see that the RIAA cartel is starting to lose the public relations battle, which has been theirs for some time.

I also would encourage all of us to write artists that you might like and ask them about why they are with a certain label and see if purchases of their work can be made directly through them. We need to boycott RIAA labels, and other organizations that are doing their dirty work.

Here is my theory on what the RIAA is desperately afraid of. Even they are not so stupid to believe there nonsense about P2P effecting their profits.

They are afraid of what some of the artists are going to realize that the RIAA is not needed. Artists have the capability to make music in studios of their creation, without tons of money. They also have the ability to have companies burn CDs if people want CDs. I do remember a few years ago, I heard the leader of Foo Fighters talking about how they made a little studio in their home, then cut an CD strickly on their own.
They wound up winning a grammy for the best Rock Album of the year.

Artists who do not sign with these slimball labels will also have the ability to allow for their music to be downloaded from thei sites for a small fee as well as see about having organizations like Amazon, Yahoo help in the electronic distribution.

[Reaper88]

I recently seen a interview with the CEO of KazaA on tech-tv. She claimed that a year ago an offer was made to the riaa to start a pay download service that offers hi quialty mp3's, and that offer is still on the table. The riaa of course says that no offer was ever made. It seems the riaa is scared of new ways to distrubute their product.

[jolo]

I believe that the Reapster has seen the light.
The true fear of the RIAA cartell. They are not needed, artists can create and distribute directly to fans without their bullcrap and the millions that they have been stealing from both artists and music buyers alike. But I have to admit, it has been the artists who they have ripped off the most.

That is very true what you have said Reapster. I forgot the name of a very popular service that the RIAA has fought and sued. They wanted to allow artists to put their wares on their site and let the downloads happen. For a .99 song, the artist would receive .49. Since on hte average, a artist might receive six cents per CD sale, it be a boon for them.

[BJ_M]

I believe that the Reapster has seen the light.
The true fear of the RIAA cartell. They are not needed, artists can create and distribute directly to fans without their bullcrap and the millions that they have been stealing from both artists and music buyers alike. But I have to admit, it has been the artists who they have ripped off the most.

That is very true what you have said Reapster. I forgot the name of a very popular service that the RIAA has fought and sued. They wanted to allow artists to put their wares on their site and let the downloads happen. For a .99 song, the artist would receive .49. Since on hte average, a artist might receive six cents per CD sale, it be a boon for them.

the avg is really about 78cents per cd -- but many cd's lose money (most) and different people get different deals .. otherwsie i have to agree w/ jolo and reaper

[jolo]

BJ_M,

I received my information about the 6 cents from a record producer who published some contracts from some groups who are pretty famous. It was pretty shocking. He probably was including the paybacks that need to be made to the record company.

The handfull like JLO, Michael Jackson (in the past) and a few others get big mega-adbvances.

Many CDs lose money, sort of, but that is a very complex issue. Sometimes fancy footwork on the books have a way of changing things.

There are many stories like a guy like Al Kooper who made an album in the last 60s that went platinum and was just re-mastered and re-released. Her has yet to receive one penny of royalties from it.
The RIAA also makes a ton on blank media, etc. So they have millions and millions and it certainly came from somewhere.

This also is a different age on how technology makes the media, recording and distribution of the media so much less.

[BJ_M]

its about 6 cents a song , maybe that is what you were thinking of instead of per cd ..

[jolo]

No,

I was thinking about 6 cents per CD.


I'll have to dig up that research.

Either way, it sucks for the artist.

[BJ_M]

do a search on google - there are many refer. to the royalties being between .50 - 2.00$ per cd ... the accounting of the label can vary wildly ... some artists can recieve up to 10$ per cd (VERY VERY rare - and many deductions for expenses are taken from this) ..

No mater how you look at it - we both agree the avg. artist is getting pretty well shafted -- but it doesnt help when you hear of some rapper making 25 million- 50 million + (and blowing it) .

Here is a good quote below (from http://www.guitarmusicindex.com/about/the_game.html )

“The Game”
Where the CD AND the money goes


1) The Label
The Artist pays for recording, mastering, CD notes, CD layout, photos (this is either paid up-front by the artist, or that amount is taken out of the artist’s royalty payments). The artist pays from $1000-$5000. The label pays to mail this to the manufacturer (ca. $12.).
2) The Manufacturer
The labels pays for manufacturing, but this will be subtracted from the artist’s royalties (usually $1.50 per finished CD). However, the artist pays back the label, but the label can write this manufacturing cost off of their taxes and the artist cannot.
3) The “One-Stop”
The CDs are “drop-shipped” [sent directly] to a “one stop.” This is a giant warehouse where all CDs are held until they are ordered by a retailer. They are then sent either to a retail store or a CD mail-order club.
5) The Retail Store (Cut-out CD Sales)
If a recording has been returned to the one-stop, the CD is then usually returned to the retail store as a “cut-out.” and sold for a few dollars below retail. The artist is NEVER paid royalties for a cut-out sales, while the Label has been able to write off ALL of the previous expenses they still make their percentage profit.
(See below for a general breakdown of record label bookkeeping.)*
4.a) The Retail Store
The retail store holds the CD until it is sold. If it doesn’t sell within a certain time, there is always a “Right of Return” (RoR). They send it back to the onestop. Note that IF they return a CD there is a “restocking fee” so the Label is paid simply for taking back the CD. YOU STILL HAVEN’T MADE A PENNY IN ROYALTIES.
4.b) CD Mail-order Club
Only rarely is the artist paid for CDs sold through a CD mail-order club. If they are paid it is usually 60% off the normal royalty payment.

* This is where the bookkeeping by record labels becomes problematic. Since the CD went through the one-stop, the Label doesn’t care, or usually even keep track of IF it is sold - they usually only keep track of if “a” CD is sold - not WHICH ONE. If they get a REORDER for a specific CD they will THEN admit that it has been sold—in all this activity, this is your one-and-only chance to get paid. However, if it’s sold and the retailer does NOT place a reorder, then “officially” the label doesn’t know if it has been sold and will not pay royalties. So... if a specific CD is not reordered, the label can play the “we don’t know” game and you don’t get paid.
The second brilliant part to this game is that the label (naturally) knows roughly how many CDs will sell (based on past sales records of similar CDs). All they have to do is make sure that they manufacture several hundred more CDs than they project will be sold, and:
1) there are no reorders (so you don’t get paid) and
2) with the CDs that are left over, they simply sell them as cut-outs (so you don’t get paid) or
3) if there are TRULY any CDs left over, they can tell you “see - it didn’t sell” and either offer to sell the remainder to you at wholesale (they still make their percentage) or simply destroy them and write that loss off their taxes. Again, you’re not paid under any of these situations. Finally, after logging sales, all the expenses incurred by the label will be subtracted from your royalties. Assuming roughly $5000 expenses that the label has against your royalties, since you’re being paid .50¢ per commercially-sold CD (which is a very high percentage), they will have to sell (and admit to selling) 10,000 CDs before you are at zero.

[jolo]

I know what you mean. Excellent post.

I am really not concerned about the rappers, but the really wealthy ones have created their own labels !! So, no RIAA, they keep the money. Besides, I'm concerned about artists, not rappers

[rhuala2]

Anyone know of good software to hide your ip address, I just don't trust anyone anymore and would rather just search annoymously. Unfortunately Anonimizer.com cost a fortune so anyone that could recommend something reasonable would be appreciated, thanks.

Van