Hot Fudge Music

[susanarosa]

How about a pie chart of where that $16 goes?

From Rolling Stone:

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead

Where's the part where they pay the attorneys?

[davecat]

How about a pie chart of where that $16 goes?

From Rolling Stone:

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead

Where's the part where they pay the attorneys?

You're expecting an attorney to be up front about where they make their money?

[Ya Mar]

How about a pie chart of where that $16 goes?

From Rolling Stone:

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead

First off, that pie chart is not that accurate. Trust me on that.

Secondly, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

That retail is loaded with overhead? That a label/distribution company is loaded with overhead?

Not sure what that has to do with the argument.

Yes, the industry has been stupid. Yes, the industry is partly to blame for illegal stealing of music.

It still does not make stealing any more acceptable.

[davecat]

I am done on the topic.

[chad sexington]

Home taping is also illegal so I trust the Reverend Ya Mar has never in his life owned a mix tape or made one for a friend.

True...but what's the distribution on that? Your best friend? A girl you liked? Making a mix tape for a friend and distributing free music to millions of people are two pretty different things. Not that it matters, but the music I used to put on those tapes...I bought.

[Ya Mar]

Or you could just all go to the store and actually pay for the music.

Fuckin' thieves.

Perhaps we would but the music industry didn't recognize that digital file formats were going to replace traditional physical media as the consumers preferred medium for music. But the industry dropped the ball.

So, you can't go buy digital files?

GM didn't recognize the need for quality and economy either. So does that make its intellectual property fair game?

The UA is unsecured, therefore people have the right to go in and strip the hell out of it?

Such a weak retort.

Admit that it is stealing, that it is breaking the law, and then justify it.

Of course it's stealing but wasn't the music industry stealing from their customers when they colluded to artificially raise the price of CD's in the mid-1990's?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20020930-1254.html

Sorry but the music industries refusal to adopt to digital file formats created this problem, not the music consumers who share/steal files. File sharing is essentially no different than home taping except that it is more efficient. Home taping is also illegal so I trust the Reverend Ya Mar has never in his life owned a mix tape or made one for a friend. Napster, Kazaa, Soulseek never would have thrived without the pig-headed refusal of the music industry to adopt to digital file formats.

So you can get high and mighty about music theft all you want (and every fucking You Tube link you post better have been posted with the creator's permission) but this problem could have been avoided if in 1998 the music industry realized the CD's were about to go the way of 8-tracks. I guess they were too busy trying to conspire to raise the cost of CDs at your local Tower Records. Cause=Effect.

The cat is out of the bag. Music is free, man.

Wow. That is pretty much a direct turn from where you stand on most other issues.

Aren't you the guy who mocks the "blame the victim" people?

Every day, people steal things that belong to record labels.

But because they did not foresee it, it is their fault?

Because they conspired to keep CD prices at MAP a decade ago, they are now responsible for the fact that people steal their property?

I am not trying to garner sympathy for the industry, to the contrary, they are, like all other capitalists, a mostly unsympathetic lot.

To say that they deserve to have their empire crumble is one thing. Mismanagement, bad decisions, poor investments, lack of foresight, not understanding who was their ultiamte consumer, mistreating the public, illegally conspiring to hold on to margins, and holding on to an outdated model are all reasons why the music industry, as it had been, is no longer viable. In a capitalistic market, such decisions should not be able to sustain itself, and eventually they reap what they have sown for decades.

To say that you deserve to be able to steal their music is quite another.

Very duplicitous, don't you think?

[davecat]

You're worse than hlovy with your goodbyes.

[Ya Mar]

You're worse than hlovy with your goodbyes.

Kind of reminds me of this little thread...

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/76017/75555.html?1151588737

[lurker]

You're worse than hlovy with your goodbyes.

Kind of reminds me of this little thread...

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/76017/75555.html?1151588737

Man, I sure as hell don't miss that place.

[Putski]

First off, that pie chart is not that accurate. Trust me on that.

Why should I trust you? What is your version of the pie chart? I hope you are not calling Rolling Stone a liar....

The point of the breakdown is that there are clearly much better ways to distribute music. People have found them. Cut out that fatty part of the equation through direct artist downloads and you have the sub $5 CD with more going to the artist. I'd pay it. It's easier than learning all this how to steal stuff.

The people I care about in the music industry are the artists and they are the ones getting the least. The labels? Last I checked there isn't a rash of foreclosures in SoCal becasue of the hard hit record industry.

[susanarosa]

CATFIGHT!

[Ya Mar]

First off, that pie chart is not that accurate. Trust me on that.

Why should I trust you? What is your version of the pie chart? I hope you are not calling Rolling Stone a liar....

The point of the breakdown is that there are clearly much better ways to distribute music. People have found them. Cut out that fatty part of the equation through direct artist downloads and you have the sub $5 CD with more going to the artist. I'd pay it. It's easier than learning all this how to steal stuff.

The people I care about in the music industry are the artists and they are the ones getting the least. The labels? Last I checked there isn't a rash of foreclosures in SoCal becasue of the hard hit record industry.

I am not calling RS a liar. Just mis-informed. I have had discussions about that pie chart with retailers, artists, labels, distribution companies, and publishing rights owners. It is nice and round and based on some very, very broad assumptions. The simple fact that Wal-Mart sells 35% of the music in the US, and their average retail price is sub $12 shows you that the pie is wrong.

That being said, I agree with you. Their are more efficient ways of music distribution. It is not a simple as "cutting out the fatty part", however. As it may be fat, it still adds value and promotes/sells music.

Somebody has to take the production risks of an album.

Somebody has to take the promotion risks of an album.

Somebody has to bear the cost of "working radio" (or Internet radio).

Somebody has to bear the cost of creating a video.

Somebody has to bear the cost of creating a space for commerce to exist.

Somebody still has to bear the cost of a physical storefront (80% of music is still sold at retail).

Somebody has to bear the cost of inventory risk (85% +of music sales are still physical).

These are things that the "fatty part" do. Do they do them all well? No. Are they working feverishly to rebuild their model? Yes.

Is it too late? Could very well be.

Meaningful direct artist to consumer sales only take place where a band already has a following. Already built a brand. Already benefited from the "fat" that you abhor.

More power to them to try and sell $5.00 collections of music.

[The Beav]

Thank God! I thought when work was over I would only have "Fletch" stuff to read. Carry on, minstrels of mahem! By the way, when does gogogander start playing devil's advocate to try and piss everybody off?

[Woodwards Friend]

To say that they deserve to have their empire crumble is one thing. Mismanagement, bad decisions, poor investments, lack of foresight, not understanding who was their ultimate consumer, mistreating the public, illegally conspiring to hold on to margins, and holding on to an outdated model are all reasons why the music industry, as it had been, is no longer viable. In a capitalistic market, such decisions should not be able to sustain itself, and eventually they reap what they have sown for decades.

That's all I'm saying. The consumer is merely using the black market to avoid the BS created by the music industry. I'm not saying the file sharing sites that profit from stolen music shouldn't be punished. I'm not even saying stealing music is right. My point is only this, file sharing would not have become such a widespread phenomena is the industry hadn't been so slow to understand the changes in the market. Now that it has happened, the music industry isn't going to stop it. That's the reality. And you will forgive me if I don't shed anymore tears for Interscope than I do for General Motors.

[Ya Mar]

To say that they deserve to have their empire crumble is one thing. Mismanagement, bad decisions, poor investments, lack of foresight, not understanding who was their ultimate consumer, mistreating the public, illegally conspiring to hold on to margins, and holding on to an outdated model are all reasons why the music industry, as it had been, is no longer viable. In a capitalistic market, such decisions should not be able to sustain itself, and eventually they reap what they have sown for decades.

That's all I'm saying. The consumer is merely using the black market to avoid the BS created by the music industry. I'm not saying the file sharing sites that profit from stolen music shouldn't be punished. I'm not even saying stealing music is right. My point is only this, file sharing would not have become such a widespread phenomena is the industry hadn't been so slow to understand the changes in the market. Now that it has happened, the music industry isn't going to stop it. That's the reality. And you will forgive me if I don't shed anymore tears for Interscope than I do for General Motors.

I believe that file sharing would have been just as widespread had the industry attempted to combat it early on with consumer friendly options.

The vast majority of thieves are not doing it because of the BS that the industry has put them through. They are doing it because it is easy and it is FREE. For $10 a month you can get full access to almost 10 million songs. The consumers have rejected it. It is simple and it is nearly free. However it is not completely free. Free and "nominal" are totally different things. And where there is an option, more than most - especially in our nihilistic, entitled society -- would prefer to steal if they cannot get caught or punished, than they would pay a nominal fee. And the failures of the legitimate Napsters and Rhapsody's to gain sufficent share are proof of that.

That being said, we agree that the labels screwed up, that they are unsympathetic, and that, becuase there are a large portion of the people in our society that do not respect the property rights of others, free music is here to stay.

However, just remember how you stand the next time you mock some graffiti artists or urban explorer that defaces the property of an absentee landlord, or somebody who pirates cable, or somebody who has insurance in Oakland County at mom's house, or...