|
RIAA Plans to Cut Artist Royalties
|
View this Thread in Original format
| infinity HiGH |
Source: Click
February 5, 2008 - The rather loathed RIAA, most recently infamous for pressuring Congress to pass the PRO-IP Act, has now turned its unwanted attention upon the very people the group ostensibly exists to protect. According to The Hollywood Reporter, The RIAA is now pressing to lower the royalty payments made to musicians and artists for music tracks sold via digital distribution. Though the actual artists who make the music are presently entitled to just 13% of wholesale, the RIAA thinks they should receive only 9%.
After years of PR that tried to convince the populace the RIAA is trying to stamp out piracy to protect musicians, the group has now made it blatantly clear the only individuals it aims to protect are those in charge of the major music labels, a group of aged executives who have massively failed to shepherd their businesses into the digital age. Now that the existence of both the RIAA and the major labels benefits neither musicians nor consumers, we can only hope that their decline has reached the critical mass that will drag them under the wheels of technologic progress and into the graveyard of history.
------ |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| I dont agree with this move but the fact is that when there are only scraps to be served, the vicious claws come out on all sides. The music industry is in big trouble which has left everyone fighting for what amounts to bits of meat on a bone compared to the steaks that used to be served. |
|
|
| MarkT |
while I think MORE money should go to the artists...if there is so little money to be had (despite the cost of digital distribution being *astronimically* cheaper than CD distribution, then why don't they just have a tiered system?
the more you sell, the lower the %. Does it really make a financial difference to Madonna or U2 or whoever if they get 13% or 9%? not really. Does it make a difference to a relatively unknown artist? yeah, probably. |
|
|
| Tb. |
| I wonder what kind of jurisdiction RIAA has and how that would apply to digital music sites like beatport...BP is a US based company, but I'd say the majority of the music they sell is from international artists, and those laws dont apply to them |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| I think the RIAA mainly speaks for the big commercial labels, the ones that aren't threatened in any sort of way. I doubt Beatport will be affected by this in any way. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the more you sell, the lower the %. Does it really make a financial difference to Madonna or U2 or whoever if they get 13% or 9%? not really. Does it make a difference to a relatively unknown artist? yeah, probably. |
So your idea is to penalize the very artists that actually keep the record labels alive? The return on investment is much higher for big artists because of their massive fan base. Sure giving more money to the small artists helps them, but it does nothing for a record label to stay alive. The margins on small artists are already so small.
Plus, by giving less money to the powerful, successful artists, it just gives them more incentive to go and start their own label, or find their on distribution platform (Radio Head, Prince...). |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ I should be more clear. it's less about penalizing the large artists and more about ensuring that smaller ones are not penalized.
i.e. if RIAA is intent on seeing the % cut, they shouldn't cut it for smaller artists who already have a hard time 'making it' and who already get paid next to nothing for their first album, even when it does really well. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| Is this why a lot of top producers in EDM have their own labels? lol |
|
|
| 8Wonders |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Is this why a lot of top producers in EDM have their own labels? lol |
It's mostly to avoid having to deal with bull from others :) |
|
|
|
|
