"Don M." <newsreader@4finearts.com> writes:
[...]
Typically an artist gets 8 cents for each single dollar-song sold
online (iTunes
takes 49 cents). If I buy the US$16 CD containing that single, the artist would
make 40 cents. I think I'd rather buy the CD (overpriced as is) and put 40 cents into the artist's pocket than 49 cents into iTunes' pocket (& 8 cents into
artist's).
If your goal is maximizing the artist's earnings, you should buy the whole album from iTunes. At the usual $9.90 price (10 * single) the artist would get 80 cents by your reckoning, as opposed to 40 cents from the $16 CD.
And yet it ends up in court opinions. Read the Verizon case, and note
the nonsense term "copyright theft" which appears in the decision --
straight from the RIAA press release to the court's decision.
In <C6Odnb_ouPGECJ2iXTWc-g@speakeasy.net> Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article <20030630093906392-0400@news.local>,
David Turley <dturley_NO_WAY_@pobox.com> wrote:
this whole thread illustrates the lack of moral upbringing of those >>>trsding in illegal music. just because a law is bad and you disagree >>>with it, doesn't make the law moot. the action is still illegal.
Just because an action is illegal doesn't mean the action is immoral.
No, but obeying the law IS a moral issue.
Reasonable copies are not illegal.Maybe.
The ACT of copying is not illegal.False. Copyright explicitly restricts the act of copying.
illegal. The usage license provides for the right to make backups.
"Dale J. Stephenson" <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote in message news:m3of0fb9oh.fsf@mac.com...
"Don M." <newsreader@4finearts.com> writes:
[...]
Typically an artist gets 8 cents for each single dollar-song sold
online (iTunes
takes 49 cents). If I buy the US$16 CD containing that single, the artist
would
make 40 cents. I think I'd rather buy the CD (overpriced as is) and put 40
cents into the artist's pocket than 49 cents into iTunes' pocket (& 8 cents
into
artist's).
If your goal is maximizing the artist's earnings, you should buy the whole album from iTunes. At the usual $9.90 price (10 * single) the artist would get 80 cents by your reckoning, as opposed to 40 cents from the $16 CD.
===========
True if those 10 songs happen to be from one single CD, such
as a Greatest Hits
compilation. However, if they are spread over say 5 CD's, that would
have been
$2.00 for the artist instead of 80 cents.
Plus I'd get true CD quality, printed
notes, etc, etc.
And not have paid any $4.00 to iTunes (the figure I should
have quoted is 40 cents/single, not 49cents).
If they sold 2 million singles in
one month, they'd be keeping almost 1 million dollars from total sales. Maybe
someone can tell me how much it costs to run an e-commerce site like that, and
why not up the cut for the artists. Smells like corporate greed all
over again.
"Don M." <newsreader@4finearts.com> writes:artist
"Dale J. Stephenson" <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote in message news:m3of0fb9oh.fsf@mac.com...
"Don M." <newsreader@4finearts.com> writes:
[...]
Typically an artist gets 8 cents for each single dollar-song sold online (iTunes
takes 49 cents). If I buy the US$16 CD containing that single, the
40would
make 40 cents. I think I'd rather buy the CD (overpriced as is) and put
centscents into the artist's pocket than 49 cents into iTunes' pocket (& 8
wouldinto
artist's).
If your goal is maximizing the artist's earnings, you should buy the whole
album from iTunes. At the usual $9.90 price (10 * single) the artist
get 80 cents by your reckoning, as opposed to 40 cents from the $16 CD.
True if those 10 songs happen to be from one single CD, such
as a Greatest Hits
compilation. However, if they are spread over say 5 CD's, that would
have been
$2.00 for the artist instead of 80 cents.
You're not following the logic here. If you bought 5 CDs for $16 each (giving the artist $2), you could also buy the same 5 albums from iTunes
for $9.90 each, giving the artist $4. While it's handy to be able to
buy just the songs you want from iTunes, you are not required to buy by
the single. Your figures show the artist making significantly more when
you buy an album from iTunes than when you buy the same album from a
regular store.
Plus I'd get true CD quality, printed
notes, etc, etc.
Absolutely true. For which you pay an additional $6 in your example. If that's worth it to you, by all means enjoy it. Just don't pretend you're doing it to help the artisit.
And not have paid any $4.00 to iTunes (the figure I should
have quoted is 40 cents/single, not 49cents).
No, instead you would pay $15.60 to distributors, promoters, and assorted middle men. I don't know why this is preferable to you.
-------------If they sold 2 million singles in
one month, they'd be keeping almost 1 million dollars from total sales. Maybe
someone can tell me how much it costs to run an e-commerce site like that, and
why not up the cut for the artists. Smells like corporate greed all
over again.
I can tell you that Apple pays the label a fixed amount per song, and the *label* pays (or doesn't pay) the artist according to whatever terms
the artist and label has. (IIRC, the composer gets a fixed cut, but the performer is probably paying back some of his advance). This is precisely anologous to a normal CD -- the money goes to the label, and the artist
is paid according to the terms of his contract (typically as interpreted
by the record company). Apple doesn't choose how much the artist gets
at all.
--
"Dale J. Stephenson" <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote in message news:m3of0e9c80.fsf@mac.com...[...]
You're not following the logic here. If you bought 5 CDs for $16 each (giving the artist $2), you could also buy the same 5 albums from iTunes for $9.90 each, giving the artist $4. While it's handy to be able to
buy just the songs you want from iTunes, you are not required to buy by
the single. Your figures show the artist making significantly more when you buy an album from iTunes than when you buy the same album from a regular store.
For this scheme to work, every single must have a corresponding album
on iTunes. If that's true, you have a point.
--------
Plus I'd get true CD quality, printed
notes, etc, etc.
Absolutely true. For which you pay an additional $6 in your example. If that's worth it to you, by all means enjoy it. Just don't pretend you're doing it to help the artisit.
----------
I said I preferred to put 40 cents into an artist's pocket via buying a
CD than
paying 49 cents to iTune (and the 8 cents to artist).
The goal of maximizing
the artist's earning came from your response. To me there are other variables
to consider, as I've said getting better quality with CD than with AAC, plus printed notes, etc.
----------
And not have paid any $4.00 to iTunes (the figure I should
have quoted is 40 cents/single, not 49cents).
No, instead you would pay $15.60 to distributors, promoters, and assorted middle men. I don't know why this is preferable to you.
Why not? Aren't they people working for a living and providing services too, or is that something unique to Apple employees?
I can tell you that Apple pays the label a fixed amount per song, and the *label* pays (or doesn't pay) the artist according to whatever terms-------------
the artist and label has. (IIRC, the composer gets a fixed cut, but the performer is probably paying back some of his advance). This is precisely anologous to a normal CD -- the money goes to the label, and the artist
is paid according to the terms of his contract (typically as interpreted
by the record company). Apple doesn't choose how much the artist gets
at all.
--
According to this article, which illistrates how the money is split,
there is a
"label's cut" and there is the "artist's cut", a "publisher's cut", a "middlemen's cut" and of course the largest cut of all, the "site's cut". http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,49472,00.html
According to you, an artist may end up netting zilch from a sale by
iTunes the
same way he/she may net zilch from CD sales. That being the case, I'd
still buy
the CD for some of the reasons already mentioned.
"Don M." <newsreader@4finearts.com> writes:
"Dale J. Stephenson" <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote in message news:m3of0e9c80.fsf@mac.com...[...]
You're not following the logic here. If you bought 5 CDs for $16 each (giving the artist $2), you could also buy the same 5 albums from iTunes for $9.90 each, giving the artist $4. While it's handy to be able to
buy just the songs you want from iTunes, you are not required to buy by the single. Your figures show the artist making significantly more when you buy an album from iTunes than when you buy the same album from a regular store.
For this scheme to work, every single must have a corresponding album
on iTunes. If that's true, you have a point.
This scheme will work if any album *you want to buy* is available on
iTunes. If singles come from a partial album, you obviously can't buy
the album from iTunes (though using your figures, even five songs from
a "partial album" would make as much as buying a full physical album). Likewise, if the single is an iTunes exclusive, buying the $16 album
isn't an option.
You could also equalize the spending -- if you spent $16 for a physical
CD, you give the artist $0.40. If you spent $16 on 16 different iTunes single, you pay artists 16*$0.8, or $1.28. It's certainly OK for you
to prefer the CD, but the artists are making much more (by your figures)
with the same money spent via iTunes.
--------
Plus I'd get true CD quality, printed
notes, etc, etc.
Absolutely true. For which you pay an additional $6 in your example. If that's worth it to you, by all means enjoy it. Just don't pretend you're doing it to help the artisit.
----------
I said I preferred to put 40 cents into an artist's pocket via buying a
CD than
paying 49 cents to iTune (and the 8 cents to artist).
Yes, and it's a ridiculous sentiment because you're comparing buying a
$16 CD to a $1 single. If you compared buying a CD to buying the same
CD online, it would go like this:
"I prefer to put 40 cents into an artist's pocket buying a CD than paying
$4.90 to iTunes (and 80 cents to the artist)."
If how much the artist is making is irrelevant, why bring it up? Especially since the artist makes *more* when you buy the same songs from iTunes.
The goal of maximizing
the artist's earning came from your response. To me there are other variables
to consider, as I've said getting better quality with CD than with AAC, plus
printed notes, etc.
Those are perfectly valid reasons. A CD is better quality, has less rights encumberance, printed notes, and there's a far better selection of them.
To give the artist more money is *not* a valid reason, because based on
your figures you give them *less* for the same songs.
----------
And not have paid any $4.00 to iTunes (the figure I should
have quoted is 40 cents/single, not 49cents).
No, instead you would pay $15.60 to distributors, promoters, and assorted middle men. I don't know why this is preferable to you.
Why not? Aren't they people working for a living and providing services too, or is that something unique to Apple employees?
Compared to record labels, I would consider Apple more deserving -- but
yes, they are both providing services. Apple's cut is lower, however.
Why mention (as a positive thing) that you're *not* paying $4.00 to
Apple, even though you're paying $10.10 *less* to non-Apple non-artists.
Is Apple somehow so undeserving of your funds that it's better to give
the labels $2 than to give Apple $1? Why worry about Apple's cut at all? Whether iTunes is "worth it" depends on your personal value/cost, not
whether Apple is making out like bandits or running the music service as
a loss leader.
------------I can tell you that Apple pays the label a fixed amount per song, and the *label* pays (or doesn't pay) the artist according to whatever terms-------------
the artist and label has. (IIRC, the composer gets a fixed cut, but the performer is probably paying back some of his advance). This is precisely
anologous to a normal CD -- the money goes to the label, and the artist is paid according to the terms of his contract (typically as interpreted by the record company). Apple doesn't choose how much the artist gets
at all.
--
According to this article, which illistrates how the money is split,
there is a
"label's cut" and there is the "artist's cut", a "publisher's cut", a "middlemen's cut" and of course the largest cut of all, the "site's cut". http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,49472,00.html
Business 2.0 is subscription-only, but thanks to the google cache I found it.
It's not iTunes specific -- it's for all download services.------------
Here's the breakdown
$0.40 Music service (site)
$0.30 label
$0.12 performer (average)
$0.10 middlemen
$0.08 publisher
The notes show the $0.12 performer often has (non-existent) packaging and promotional fees subtracted from their cut, leaving them with $0.08 -- but that three labels have announced plans to do away with such deductions for online downloads (only). The $0.12 is average -- some bands have more favorable contracts, some have less favorable. The $0.08 for the publisher is a "mechanical royalty" and goes straight to the author/composer. Artists who write their own music get that too.
IIRC, Apple contracts with the labels, and the labels are responsible for paying out all royalties. The various tricks used by labels to reduce
paying non-mechanical royalties (breakage, free materials, reserve against returns, container fees) are ludicrous for online distribution, but it doesn't mean they aren't used.
According to you, an artist may end up netting zilch from a sale by
iTunes the
same way he/she may net zilch from CD sales. That being the case, I'd still buy
the CD for some of the reasons already mentioned.
And that's fine.
Effectively it doesn't matter much to an artist whether---------
or not you buy online -- the mechanical royalties get paid either way,
and the other royalties usually never get paid.
So if you'd rather pay more to get a CD for its various benefits, don't
feel guilty about shafting the artist.
Just don't pretend it's better---------
for the artist to buy the physical CD, because there's no real evidence
for that.
"Dale J. Stephenson" <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote in message news:m3fzlp9g5g.fsf@mac.com...
"Don M." <newsreader@4finearts.com> writes:
I said I preferred to put 40 cents into an artist's pocket via buying a CD than
paying 49 cents to iTune (and the 8 cents to artist).
Yes, and it's a ridiculous sentiment because you're comparing buying a
$16 CD to a $1 single. If you compared buying a CD to buying the same
CD online, it would go like this:
"I prefer to put 40 cents into an artist's pocket buying a CD than paying
$4.90 to iTunes (and 80 cents to the artist)."
===========
Why do insist on changing what I said?
It seems important to you that I pay
$4.90 to iTunes when I already said that "I preferred to put 40 cents into an artist's pocket via buying a CD than paying 49 cents to iTune (and the
8 cents
to artist)". If I buy a single on iTunes or buy the entire retail CD containing
that single, what would be the matter? I already stated that buying
AAC to me
is not the same as buying a CD.
And not have paid any $4.00 to iTunes (the figure I should
have quoted is 40 cents/single, not 49cents).
No, instead you would pay $15.60 to distributors, promoters, and assorted
middle men. I don't know why this is preferable to you.
Why not? Aren't they people working for a living and providing services too, or is that something unique to Apple employees?
Compared to record labels, I would consider Apple more deserving -- but yes, they are both providing services. Apple's cut is lower, however.
Why mention (as a positive thing) that you're *not* paying $4.00 to
Apple, even though you're paying $10.10 *less* to non-Apple non-artists.
Is Apple somehow so undeserving of your funds that it's better to give
the labels $2 than to give Apple $1? Why worry about Apple's cut at all? Whether iTunes is "worth it" depends on your personal value/cost, not whether Apple is making out like bandits or running the music service as
a loss leader.
Now, what services does Apple provide that are so more deserving? Encoding audio to AAC format and selling it online?
According to you, an artist may end up netting zilch from a sale by iTunes the
same way he/she may net zilch from CD sales. That being the case, I'd still buy
the CD for some of the reasons already mentioned.
And that's fine.------------
How is that "fine"? Wasn't it *your* goal to maximize artists' income?
How do
you maximize zilch?
---------
Effectively it doesn't matter much to an artist whether
or not you buy online -- the mechanical royalties get paid either way,
and the other royalties usually never get paid.
So if you'd rather pay more to get a CD for its various benefits, don't feel guilty about shafting the artist.---------
I buy a CD, which results in some income for the artist - how do you figure I'm shafting the artist? Now consumers should feel guilty about buying CD's??? Your statement makes absolutely no sense.
--------
Just don't pretend it's better---------
for the artist to buy the physical CD, because there's no real evidence
for that.
It was *your* goal to maximize artist's income, but it's coming across
as a goal
to maximize Apple's profits. How many times do I need to say there are other factors involved in the decision of buying a CD over lossy AAC format?
In a previous post, Dale J. Stephenson said...
I have no problem with you considering the CD album superior to an AAC album -- it is superior to an AAC album. But comparing a CD album to
an AAC single just to make it appear (incorrectly) that the artist makes more off CDs is misleading.
I thought he was considering the value, for him, of purchasing random singles in a format of lesser quality as opposed to buying CDs by artists
he enjoys.
It also seemed to me that he was making the point that
selling the singles might in some cases cut into the album sales and therefore the artists profits from the work, but that part is simply my interpretation and I may be wrong.
David Turley <dturley_NO_WAY_@pobox.com> writes:
In <C6Odnb_ouPGECJ2iXTWc-g@speakeasy.net> Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article <20030630093906392-0400@news.local>,
David Turley <dturley_NO_WAY_@pobox.com> wrote:
this whole thread illustrates the lack of moral upbringing of those >>>trsding in illegal music. just because a law is bad and you disagree >>>with it, doesn't make the law moot. the action is still illegal.
Just because an action is illegal doesn't mean the action is immoral.
No, but obeying the law IS a moral issue.
Not always. Civil disobedience in the face of a true injustice by the majority is an appropriately moral action.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 00:08:35 |
| Calls: | 9,134 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
75 files (28,609K bytes) |
| Messages: | 465,510 |
| Posted today: | 2 |