Why do some artists not care if you illegally download and steal their
work? It is probably because the typical record deal goes like this.
The label gives an advance of about $250,000 to the artist to record the
album. The album sells about 500,000 copies at $10 a piece. This
yields $5,000,000. The label takes their cut of 85%. The artist gets
$750,000 but first, the label deducts the advance leaving the artist
with $500,000. The label then recoups production costs which are about
$300,000. Then promotion costs of about $75,000, then video costs at
$300,000 an then tour support at $250,000. This leaves the artist
$425,000 in dept to the label and that dept gets carried on to the next
album which the artist is usually contractually obligated to produce,
and then the next album, then the next album. The artist is trapped in
bad contracts and debt to the label while the label continues to get
rich.
When a congress person writes a law, there is the main
law, but they then throw in about 25 smaller laws which get carried over
with the main legislation and most voters don't even notice those
ancillary laws getting passed. Just like Congress and bad legislation,
music label contracts also have little things thrown in. For instance:
Damage fees. These are left in the contract and if a lawyer or artist
doesn't catch it, the artist pays for them. Most sales today are
digital downloads making "damage fees" irrelevant but, they are still in
most contracts. Other hidden items are packaging costs which are about
25% of the artist's cut. This is even attracted to digital downloads
where packaging is non-existent. 10% is deducted to cover breakage
costs during shipping. This started in the vinyl era and continued with
CD's and still applies today with digital downloads despite the fact
that an mp3 download can't get damaged during "shipping."
10%
of the artist royalty gets deducted for an antiquated system where
retail purchasers will purchase 100 albums but get an additional 10 for
free. Since the artist is only paid on what is sold, they are not
compensated for the free items which are non-existent in the digital
download market yet deductions still continue for the "free" products in
the digitally dominated market. As you can see, artists generate a lot
of money for people not involved in the creative process at all.
Music
will never die. It will always drive industry, it will always drive
innovation and will always be available. Everyone wants and loves
music. Many artists feel that if five million people illegally download
their album, that is still five million people they touched and that is
a value far greater than money. Especially if the artist will never
see any of that money in the first place.
A band named "30
Seconds to Mars" asked a sold out audience at one of their concerts how
many of them had a copy of their new album "This Is War." The audience
roared. The lead singer, Jared Leto then asked how many people
illegally downloaded it and the audience roared with increased volume.
"This is War" sold nearly two million copies and 30 Seconds to Mars sold
out all of their tours. 30 Seconds to Mars is still in debt to EMI for
$1,700,000. The band has never been paid for their two albums. When
30 Seconds to Mars tried to get out of their black hole of a contract,
EMI sued them for $30,000,000.
Major artists have been rapidly
severing ties with record labels and some of the big labels are
beginning to suffer for it but, who's fault is that? If every time I
walk past your house you come out and punch me, I'm going to stop
walking past your house. The labels have screwed over the artists for
so long that the artists are beginning to find new ways to sell their
art and craft. The industry is suffering because the artist is not
going to take it anymore. Several artists have even sued EMI such as
Kenny Rogers, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Marvin Gaye, Pink Floyd,
Graciela Beltran, Yoko Ono, Poison and even bands from the 80's such as
The Motels are launching lawsuits.
Two years ago, over 7 million
Internet users helped defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) -- a
bill that would have censored the web and impeded innovation. They also
killed the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Since SOPA and PIPA have been
stopped, creativity has continued to thrive -- both on and off the web.
Of course, piracy remains a major concern but, two years after SOPA,
it's clear that the Internet has been really good for creativity and
entertainment. There have been countless studies proving that online
piracy actually promotes the sale of movies and music and merchandise.
There have also been studies proving that the people who illegally
download would most likely not buy the product anyway so there is no
revenue loss either way - but there is still promotion.
Go to
websites such as IMDB and check out the movie and album profits over
five years old and study the profit margins. Despite having hundreds
of thousands of illegal downloads, a movie which costs ten million to
make still ends up with a profit of hundreds of millions. How can this
be if piracy is such a problem?
Singers, filmmakers, and
comedians today have more outlets for creativity online than ever
before. Thanks to the Internet we have so many more choices for
entertainment, including YouTube videos, online-only movies and TV
shows, and online-only releases of popular music. Dinosaurs go extinct
for a reason.
The only thing SOPA would have done is restrict
creativity, collaboration, and freedom of speech. The world wide
reaction demonstrated the power of regular internet users to affect
policy -- and it's a tradition we should continue and employ for other
bad legislation.
Kirstin Gillibrand co-sponsored PIPA which is no
surprise considering she was the happy recipient of more than $610,000
from the Hollywood entertainment industry last year and they can't seem
to figure out why they are losing money, artists and being sued. Even
more troubling is Ms. Gillibrand refusal to state whether or not she
even read her own legislation before co-sponsoring it. Instead, she
posted on Facebook (which, ironically, was staunchly opposed to both
PIPA and SOPA) "I agree there are real concerns with the current
legislation and I'm working to make important changes to the bill."
Isn't this the kind of thing you ought to consider BEFORE co-sponsoring
legislation and presenting it for a vote? Did she even read her own
bill before signing off on it? Why would she co-sponsor a bill which
could have decimated the film and music industry? Oh, $610,000
reasons.
These bills were written by the lawyers of the film
and music industries and our legislators were going to blindly sign off
on them. They later backpedaled admitting that they had no idea how
destructive these bills could have been. Why are these people in office
to begin with if they don't know what they are doing and they blindly
accept the word of lobbyists? Gillibrand wasn't the only one. Chuck
Schumer was also blindly on board. Most of the senate was going to pass
those bills until 7 million internet users took the time to read the
bills themselves. Why do we have to do their jobs for them?
After
Gillibrand and Schumer's bill was essentially killed, Gillibrand took
to Facebook again saying: "While many of my colleagues and I have
worked hard to address concerns with the current bill, it is clear this
proposal will not create consensus on how to crack down on the real
problem of online theft that threatens tens of thousands of New York
jobs in a balanced way that ensures our tech companies will continue to
flourish. It is time for Congress to take a step back and start over
with both sides bringing their solutions to the table to find common
ground towards solving this problem." Nice backpedaling, there. Why
can't our elected officials see that the root of the problem is not a
few PirateBay Users but the industry itself?
The real problem is
that the artists are getting raped by the industry fat cats. The
politicians only listen to those with the money: the labels and their
lawyers. As long as we have stupid politicians writing stupid laws and
not even reading them, is it any wonder that artists themselves are
promoting piracy and dumping their labels and promoting themselves?
Again, whose fault is that?
Comedian Louis C.K. had enough with
the corporate and political greed so he made his own video, promoted it
himself, posted it online and asked for a $5 donation. I'm sure a lot
of people "stole" it and Louis didn't mind because he made 1.34 million
dollars in ten days. How much of that did he have to share with greedy
corporate fat cats who have no input in the creativity of his art? If
Gillibrand had her way, Louis C. K. would be in prison for promoting
piracy of his own work.
Check out this video created by an artist who posts his work freely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1XZHVYqenw
If
the text doesn't make sense to you, watch the video where Jayme and Joe
share how they made the video. Therein they explain some of the words,
phrases and their thoughts on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F0dxEk1Tps
Greed
and corruption has existed too long in the music and film industry and
all that is about to change. The greedy corporations have discovered
that they can't effectively buy Senate votes, although senators are
still trying to find ways to "protect" the music industry but maybe they
should first protect the artists.
No comments:
Post a Comment