Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 55 56 57 58 59 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
have the right to re record it any time at theirs or someone elses expense.
Not under most recording contracts I've seen
-
that the company then make the artist pay for the recording costs out of their cut of the profits.
Under a very much reduced share of the profits, minimised by technology deductions, packaging deductions (including on digital), royalty halving when it's advertised, holding large percentages in reserve, and a multitude of other things. And now they want to add your '360' income into that flow so you don't even have that to draw from, whilst all the time you're forced to rely on advice from your management company which, uhhh, they now own....
And we haven't gone into to re-recording and options clauses.....
There is very much a rough justice happening right now and it's very hard to feel sympathy for any major label
-
Worth referencing Steve Albini's version of all this too
It's got worse since then.
-
3410,
Please tell me they don't still deduct for breakage.
-
Please tell me they don't still deduct for breakage.
"Those newfangled digital bits! Always breakin'! Don't rightly understand it meself...."
-
Under a very much...
See I knew you were going to do that. in fact I said as much.
sorry, my eyes glazed over in very much the same way as they did when my grandfather started telling us about the old days, when they used to lick the road clean with their tongue. jumpers for goal posts etc.I'm sure it was all very exciting at the time but now there's absolutely no excuse for not knowing about these nasty contracts, its not like the older generation haven't been going on and on about it for bloody decades.
so back to actual details, Ms loves maths? anyone?
-
I'm sure it was all very exciting at the time but now there's absolutely no excuse for not knowing about these nasty contracts
Not sure how that's a relevant point. Why was there any excuse at any time? Lawyers could read and the stuff in those links was hardly a revelation either then or now . You've never had to sign them but people did. And they still do, and for most bands or acts who've signed a recording contract with a major or many smaller labels, since about 1975 up until today, it's highly relevant.
One of the fundmental philosophies of the new wave of post punk indies in the late 1970s and onwards was not to subject artists to those sorts of deals (hence the Factory, Beggars Banquet and Rough Trade 50 /50 splits...label advances costs, then after recoupment from all income, profits are split 50 / 50), but a list of acts who've signed such punitive deals since then would take this thread forward 5 or 6000 pages.
And it remains a major stumbling block for the labels (major and many indies) claiming victimisation in 2009.
It has as much to do with the present, perhaps even more since the terms have often worsened.
-
Worth referencing Steve Albini's version of all this too
You know, I'd heard of that but I'm not sure if I'd actually read it before. It's like a document of some kind of ritual abuse.
It's got worse since then.
I can barely imagine how.
-
"Imagine downloading a movie in ten minutes or an MP3 in a few seconds. That is what you will be able to do under Natonals new broadband initiative."
Tv3 News @ 6
-
Tv3 News @ 6
You're fucking kidding.
-
It has as much to do with the present, perhaps even more since the terms have often worsened.
no accounting for stupidity.
there's no excuse for not knowing,as I said, the internets re full off it, the music papers are full of it, every cool indie rock star is full of it,The point remains - if better options are open then take them. The post punk model as you explained it seems common sense really, although the factory model differed significantly from that if reports are to be believed.
did these peoples parents not show them how to shop in a supermarket when they were growing up.
I just find the whole shock horror thing tedious,
its like complaining that you bought a jelly snake for $2.70 from a corner store and they're only supposed to cost $0.95. (I did that a couple of weeks ago and am still in shock, but never again). -
I should note that my previous comment refers to the apparently completely clueless reporting of the news, rather than any tacit endorsement of copyright infringement. Post tomorrow.
-
One of the fundmental philosophies of the new wave of post punk indies in the late 1970s and onwards ...
Simon, if you haven't grabbed it by then, I'll give you a copy of the recent BBC4 doco on Rough Trade when you come in June. I am very confident that you will love it.
-
I can barely imagine how.
new technology deductions, the packaging deduction has up to tripled from Albini's deduction, they want a cut of your peripheral income which can be used to recoup costs, and much much more. And then there are the option extension equations which can hold an act tied up in non-recording mode for years, if the label so desires.
And now you're recouping those costs more or less on a ringtone or mp3 download rather than album sales. There was a list of acts on The Velvet Rope who'd never been able to recoup and the list is frightening, some household names appeared, but to be fair, many were their own worst enemies when it came to spending.
Talking of which, there is an interesting breakdown here:
Artist Break-Even - Same numbers, but assume that 60% of the marketing costs are recoupable. The artist's break-even is 945,945 units at the old price and 1.3 Million units at the new price (these numbers are actually low because, for similicity, I did not take into account the fact that producer royalties will be payable before the artist is recouped - in most instances, the record company will pay them and charge them to the artist's account, further delaying recoupment). "
Although that breakdown misses the fact that the artist breakeven is further extended by the deductions which go into the labels' pockets. So assuming 20% packaging, then only 80% of the royalty goes against the artist recoupment account, and that 20% can be added to the label's side of the ledger, thus the label is in profit sooner and the artist later.
And we haven't even started on the amount of stuff given to retailers as discounts, promo, inducements, and cut-outs.
-
And then there are the option extension equations which can hold an act tied up in non-recording mode for years, if the label so desires.
chris sheen is a classic example of this.
He was tied up delivering albums for his uk label who each year took his new work and popped it on the shelf, not releasing it.
He got paid his advance as agreed but each year he continually got nowhere in his career.
There's no guarantee that he would have attained stardom but then he never really got the chance to see. now he's a little past his prime. -
did these peoples parents not show them how to shop in a supermarket when they were growing up.
Or perhaps they just wanted to be pop stars..it's happening to one or two kids out there I believe. The number of people I've seen when presented with a contract, who simply ask 'where do I sign', is just silly.
Labels know that and they know they have the upper hand in negotiation, and that that there are 100 bands willing to sign the almost non-negotiable terms if you don't.
These are negotiated from a very unequal position, and ypu may find it appropriate to muse that 'they should've known better' but the inequity has traipsed it's way through a variety courts over the years and I believe is usually settled by a behind the scenes face-saving deal between the label and the act. It's also a core platform for the Billy Bragg led UK artists foundation mentioned earlier in this thread. There is, not being a lawyer, a fairly fundamental legal breach of fair dealing here I'd think, which is why the labels usually settle.
Simon, if you haven't grabbed it by then, I'll give you a copy of the recent BBC4 doco on Rough Trade when you come in June. I am very confident that you will love it.
shhhhh..don't tell Rob....but yes, I'd love it.
-
And we haven't even started
yes you have, you've listed all this stuff endlessly.
tell us about you hatred of mark knoffler. is it his band stuff or does it extend to his solo career and his soundtrack work?
-
shhhhh..don't tell Rob....but yes, I'd love it.
you're in piracy central simon, why don't you hook up a bit torrent, or surely you can grab it at the local market.
-
Or perhaps they just wanted to be pop stars.
No I'm saying go indie. if indie offer everything a major offers with a non satan tinged contract then go indie and stop complaining about getting into bed with the devil you should know very well by now.
or maybe the benefits aren't purely financial so it's misleading to look at it in purely financial terms.
if they sign on because they want to be pop stars maybe they get exactly what they bargained for, no more, no less.
-
tell us about you hatred of mark knoffler. is it his band stuff or does it extend to his solo career and his soundtrack work?
Rob, don't tell me you're merrily wandering through, and misconstruing, half decade old NZ Radio threads again.....
yes you have, you've listed all this stuff endlessly.
uhhh, no, as I say, I just offered the tip, I haven't started on this stuff (and have no intention of doing so).
-
if indie offer everything a major offers with a non satan tinged contract then go indie and stop complaining about getting into bed with the devil you should know very well by now.
So, 18 years old, playing gigs, a big label turns ups and says 'we want you, sign this letter of intent' (see Albini) and you say, with the stars fully removed from your eyes because you've read a few posts on the internet, 'no, I don't want any of that. I want indie because you are satan'. And if I don't say that, I'm responsible for any onerous terms I may sign because you've offered an enticement to the stuff I've been dreaming about in my bedroom for years.
Sorry Rob, it's not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
-
NZ Radio threads again
:) bugger. you got me there.
I love that dire straits gag reflex about you though. why does someones like or dislike of music have to be rational (not saying hating headband wearing sweaty guitarists is irrational at all) -
dire straits gag reflex
Mark Knoffler...now there's someone who will happily say he was screwed by the record industry. He does so fairly regularly...75% new tech deduction on all those Brothers In Arms. They settled out of court of course.
I'm warming to him, and there's a pool less than 10 metres away for me to twist embarrassingly beside.
-
because you've offered an enticement to the stuff I've been dreaming about in my bedroom for years.
all the dreaming in their bedroom stars I've met are well up on their rock history. that's what they do in their bedroom for years, read books and mags and articles about exactly this. our media is riddled with this stuff, every second rockstar movie has it in it, every bioography every industry article. its almost become the story that sells, I'm sure some marketing execs include it in their spin to make their stars credible. you ain't hard a hard life till you've been fucked over by your label.
Its the same in any industry, buyer beware.
that doesn't excuse unfair dealings but it certainly deflates the poor stupid artist argument. if they want to be stars fine, if they want to get rich, get a business head on your shoulders. ignorance isn't an excuse. -
as I said, the internets re full off it, the music papers are full of it, every cool indie rock star is full of it,
For a given value of "it".....
Post your response…
This topic is closed.