|
Do illegal downloads mean lower revenue/royalties for the artists? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| clay |
not free. looks like a label actually. |
|
|
| Scrittah |
| quote: | Originally posted by clay
not free. looks like a label actually. |
Not all of it's free, but the guy is very pro-piracy and gives away tons of free tracks on tumblr, youtube, etc. And it is one guy operating under tons of aliases. |
|
|
| clay |
| does it work for him? im gonna get my music on spotify and iTunes maybe though, but not through a label. |
|
|
| mattlange |
Do illegal downloads mean less royalties for artists? Of course it does. We don't get royalties when people download and share our music illegally. Each year there's been less and less money in the underground scene. This means smaller advances, smaller remix fee's etc... many more labels want to pay only on royalties, without an advance. Ultimately this means they have nothing to lose, as they've invested nothing. As an artist, there's little motivation to sign a deal like that, unless it's a profile building decision. Ultimately this means, less music from your favorite artists, as many of them have to tour nearly full time now.
As for starting your own label, it can be a two way sword. I've recently done it myself actually, and while you no longer have to give away royalties to another label, minus distributors and retailers, you now have that much more to lose also. Piracy hits even harder when you run a label yourself as you no longer are going to get an advance for anything, and if your track doesn't sell (regardless of the amount of piracy), you lose whatever money you put into it, be it for promotion, distribution, studio costs, etc... whereas with a label, you'd only lose your time (not counting potential income expected from sales, etc..) Theoretically you CAN make more, but you have to realize that now as an artist, you have to compete with marketing and business teams that work for the labels that are FAR more experienced than you are with that side of the equation. Money can't be the reason to start a label for yourself, and least not if you expect immediate income. It does, however, open up a level of freedom with your music that you won't get with the bigger labels. |
|
|
| clay |
| quote: | Originally posted by mattlange
Do illegal downloads mean less royalties for artists? Of course it does. We don't get royalties when people download and share our music illegally. |
you cant prove people would buy your music if piracy wanst available. the fact that your income is getting lower every year might just mean that you dont adapt to the trends. i doubt very much that the total amount of $$$ sales in the music industry in total are getting any lower. its just a harder competition to be where the moneys at. its basic economics: supply, demand. right now the supply is bigger than the demand so of course people cant live of it. |
|
|
| mattlange |
| actually clay, my own personal income from music has gone up. before you make statements about doubting music sales going down, maybe you should do a bit of research first. The supply is certainly way too high, but now have a much vaster pool of artists splitting less money. It's not just that there are more artists. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by clay
you cant prove people would buy your music if piracy wanst available. the fact that your income is getting lower every year might just mean that you dont adapt to the trends. i doubt very much that the total amount of $$$ sales in the music industry in total are getting any lower. its just a harder competition to be where the moneys at. its basic economics: supply, demand. right now the supply is bigger than the demand so of course people cant live of it. |
http://hollywoodmusic.tv/jordan-ferry-corsten
Corsten says producer revenues are way down from what they used to be. I think it's pretty clear, whether it's software piracy or illegal song downloads, both hurt industry interests, financially. While illegal downloads are not the only negative market forces, when combined with an over-saturated supplier market, in the producer side, the effect they have is akin to counterfeiting money and credit card fraud. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| I honestly think the oversaturation of the EDM market is to blame, and people are just wagging fingers at the people downloading the music. If piracy didn't exist less music would be shared but I doubt more money would be put into the scene. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by mattlange
actually clay, my own personal income from music has gone up. before you make statements about doubting music sales going down, maybe you should do a bit of research first. The supply is certainly way too high, but now have a much vaster pool of artists splitting less money. It's not just that there are more artists. |
That's a good point, but in fairness you're more established and have better labels behind you than most, and therefore a sturdier revenue stream. Having said that, there's no reason that other are not in the same position, or could do the same, it's just that the smaller labels, IMO, used to find it easier to make money, and in turn artists signed to those labels.
As for Ferry's comments - I would imagine he would say that. He really came to prominance at the peak of dutch trance wave, when vinyl sales were also peaking and well before mp3 downloads were abundant. It really doesn't surprise me he's saying revenue is down. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
I honestly think the oversaturation of the EDM market is to blame, and people are just wagging fingers at the people downloading the music. If piracy didn't exist less music would be shared but I doubt more money would be put into the scene. |
I think it's a little more nuanced than just illegal downloading but to not think of that as a major factor is wrong-headed. The inception of Napster pretty much heralded things as they are now. Had that (not just Napster but file-sharing, in general) not occurred, the market would be far different. File sharing has made a tectonic change in the way music is sold and the prices it is sold for.
If it were somehow magically removed - that no music file could or would ever be illegally downloaded, again - a whole host of services which offer music at minimal costs, such as Rhapsody and Napster (in its current incarnation), would be dispensed with, completely. The music industry has adopted a carrot and stick approach, with the stick portion being the legal action taken against illegal downloading while the carrot is inexpensive accessibility to remedial quality music files.
A market segment, intimidated (and I actually know people this has happened to) against file-sharing, has turned to low-cost internet services to sate their desire for music. These services mitigate the financial hemorrhaging - at least by the record companies - but they fall far short of providing the level of income, prior to Napster's inception.
Over-saturation is a factor but it's also part of the solution, where record companies are concerned. A record company need not invest in just a few artists who increase exposure to risk, when they can literally multiply the number of artists in the stables, taking on more revenue streams through fractal multiplicity.
Again, if piracy weren't a factor, there'd be very little motivation to employ such a strategy. Over-saturation, then, is less of a market condition and more of a market solution. If a label faces the same loss risk, per artist, the obvious choice is to multiply the number of artists while lowering the investment for each of them. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| Agreed for the most part about your ideas on piracy in the grander scheme of things, it does keep a lot of alternative methods of selling music impractical. Still.. I just don't think a lot of music is going into the EDM market and the actual act of piracy isn't harming that too much. As a practice, though, I can see how it inhibits trying to find alternative ways to make both the seller and buyer happy. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
Agreed for the most part about your ideas on piracy in the grander scheme of things, it does keep a lot of alternative methods of selling music impractical. Still.. I just don't think a lot of music is going into the EDM market and the actual act of piracy isn't harming that too much. As a practice, though, I can see how it inhibits trying to find alternative ways to make both the seller and buyer happy. |
EDM is, indeed, a niche where the wider music market is concerned. If anything, however, I think that because it is what it is it's probably a little more exposed than more mainstream music. I point, again, to its recent history in the past twenty years. The situation was polar opposite before the Rave Era was in full swing.
Before the movement which gave birth to artists, such as Corsten, labels producing EDM were on the outskirts, so to speak. The market was largely underground and artists were still handled according to a mainstream industry model - only on a much smaller scale. As an artist, you were required/advised to send in a mix-tape to perspective labels and if you were able to "sell" yourself, you were awarded a contract - the first album for which the artist rarely saw a profit as the sales went to paying back on the advance given to them by the label.
Still, things were profitable enough that groups like The Shamen, Information Society (which is nearly a hold-over from the eighties but relevant in 1991...), 808 State, and KLF (among throngs of others) were able to maintain enough to make second and third (and even more) albums. When the Rave Era finally took hold and really began to elevate EDM to more prominent levels, a lot of the innovation that was occurring was made possible because of cash-flow that was uninhibited.
Napster changed the game, entirely, and the effect is realized in the existence of practically exploitative businesses like Beatport. Where Digital Rights Management code, invented as a mediocre antidote to Napster and its brethren, inhibited a DJ's ability to play digital files as much as it inhibits one from making a mix-CD of music to give to someone else, Beatport offers DRM free recordings. DRM is absolutely a primary reason Beatport even exists. And make no mistake about it: Beatport is essentially the face of the EDM market-place with fewer and fewer brick and mortar outlets for vinyl alive and kicking as a result of being undercut in price.
Now, it's not that you don't have innovation (or vinyl) occurring, still. NDi's most recent album is a prime example of that and there are numerous others. To argue that it's as promoted or as prominent at the same pace prior to file-sharing, however, is to be uninformed. Things are reverting back to pre-1991 dynamics as a result of Napster; ostensibly invented as a backlash against those same dynamics. The industry is, once again, in the driver's seat, promoting acts like Swedish House Mafia and is responsible for moving EDM closer to mainstream markets where creative control rests largely inside the production house of major labels.
And now for the signed artists, while there are more of them, they have even less of a foothold and are even more disposable than ever. There may well be acts like Swedish House Mafia (mediocre outliers who are masters at the political game with relatively little real skill displayed), able to sustain a career, but, by-and-large, most won't. Again, negate illegal downloading and therefore negate DRM and the need for a business like Beatport - the apparent Wal*Mart of dance music - and prices would go up. Re-introduce a comodifiable medium (i.e. vinyl), opposing infinitely replicable data and, again, prices go up.
When you have those conditions, independent labels have more money with which to support artists and less motivation to mitigate risk with an over-blown stable. |
|
|
|
|
