The law vs the greater good part 2, music

[RightIsWrong]

I agree to some extent, but in this case he enabled them to commit their crime. They could not have stolen the property without someone first making it available illegally. It's simply easier to go after the dealer than the buyer, just as in illegal drug use.

Couldn't it then be argued that the label enabled them to commit the crime by facilitating the mass production of the artists' work?

I believe I read somewhere that the artists get something like $.05 for each CD sold leaving the record label to take some 99% of the actual sale price. In researching this I stumbled upon this article with a lovely breakdown:



Now, if the record label wants to claim that the artists are being stolen from, they should first look at themselves and then, after they do that and realize that they are greedy bastards and don't care that they are hypocrits, they should be forced to give the proceeds of any of these lawsuits directly to the artist.

Instead, they themselves, rob the artist again.


http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...e-Pirate-Bay-Damages-Reward-With-Artists.html

Legal documents written by the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), a group that represents music labels, have revealed that there are no plans to share any funds recovered from The Pirate Bay lawsuit with artists and rightsholders.

Instead, the €550,000 rewarded to record companies will be given to the IFPI for for "use in future anti-piracy activities".

The Recording Industry of Association of America's (RIAA) own anti-piracy page describes "songwriters, recording artists, audio engineers, computer technicians, talent scouts and marketing specialists, producers, publishers and countless others" as being the victims of the "music theft", it appears that none of those mentioned will actually see a cent of damages from the lawsuit.

 

[Doppel]

The truth is that the most pirated music is the most popular as well, stealing money from generally very wealthy artists. It's unlikely these particular individuals would not stop creating their works if they were worth less millions. There are exceptions. For example creations like Bieber cannot exist without today's high money music industry, but most of the music I'm betting most of the people in this thead listen to would be created with or without copyright.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The truth is that the most pirated music is the most popular as well, stealing money from generally very wealthy artists. It's unlikely these particular individuals would not stop creating their works if they were worth less millions. There are exceptions. For example creations like Bieber cannot exist without today's high money music industry, but most of the music I'm betting most of the people in this thead listen to would be created with or without copyright.

Tens of thousands of garage bands exist with no monetary incentive at all. In fact almost all very wealthy music artists started this way, and did so with little to no expectation that they would ever make enough money to cover their bar tab.

 

[Arglebargle]

Couldn't it then be argued that the label enabled them to commit the crime by facilitating the mass production of the artists' work?

I believe I read somewhere that the artists get something like $.05 for each CD sold leaving the record label to take some 99% of the actual sale price. In researching this I stumbled upon this article with a lovely breakdown:



Now, if the record label wants to claim that the artists are being stolen from, they should first look at themselves and then, after they do that and realize that they are greedy bastards and don't care that they are hypocrits, they should be forced to give the proceeds of any of these lawsuits directly to the artist.

Instead, they themselves, rob the artist again.


http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...e-Pirate-Bay-Damages-Reward-With-Artists.html

This.

The sad thing is that these parts of the recording industry are notoriously crooked and corrupt, and don't think a second about robbing the actual musicians who provide them with all their content. They are in a classic mode of protecting their antiquated procedures and turf.

When last I looked in on it, the recording industry has payment models based on juke boxes of one hundred years ago; they charge bands 'breakage' based on percentages coming from 78rpm shellac manufacturing; payola was long required to get songs played on the radio; Cd price fixing; etc. The list is quite long.

Moving to something like a dime a song download micropayment for bands would give them more money than they make now in the present system, and would cut out a bunch of parasitical leeches.

Lots of musicians have been adapting to the new ways of the world, but the recording industry is just trying strong arm tactics and buying the legal infrastructure to maintain their outmoded positions of power. They are buggy hoop manufacturers with a strong lobby.

 

[CycloWizard]

Couldn't it then be argued that the label enabled them to commit the crime by facilitating the mass production of the artists' work?

I believe I read somewhere that the artists get something like $.05 for each CD sold leaving the record label to take some 99% of the actual sale price. In researching this I stumbled upon this article with a lovely breakdown:



Now, if the record label wants to claim that the artists are being stolen from, they should first look at themselves and then, after they do that and realize that they are greedy bastards and don't care that they are hypocrits, they should be forced to give the proceeds of any of these lawsuits directly to the artist.

Instead, they themselves, rob the artist again.


http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...e-Pirate-Bay-Damages-Reward-With-Artists.html

If the artist signed a contract, then there is no theft. Artists can and do represent themselves and act as their own labels. Stealing music simply means the artist gets $0 rather than $0.05. Multiply that by 10 million albums and it's not a trivial amount.

 

[Texashiker]

If the artist signed a contract, then there is no theft. Artists can and do represent themselves and act as their own labels.

The only way an artist is going to become famous is by signing with a record label.

So its not like they have a real choice.

 

[CycloWizard]

The only way an artist is going to become famous is by signing with a record label.

So its not like they have a real choice.

Then the label must be worth what it's charging them. If an artist will sell 10,000 CDs without representation and keep $10 from each one, it will end up with $100,000. If an artist will sell 10,000,000 CDs with representation and keep $0.05 from each, he comes out with $500,000. Besides, no one is holding a gun to an artist's head and forcing him to sign one of these contracts. They are free to
1. start their own label
2. publish their work online
3. develop their own business model
4. choose another career

The bottom line is that artists use these labels because they work and make more money than they think they would be able to otherwise.