Having been in the arts all these years and still very much involved in content management issues there are always different ideas about how to make money in it. For video, it ranges from as high as paying $10 to watch a movie streaming that has not yet play in theaters and will probably only play a few major cities for a week that still have an art house and also the festival circuit. And down to the $8 a month all you can eat Netflix watch instantly model. I listen to Michael Ruppert's show on prn.fm and he recently got a check for his Netflix royalties on a documentary he produced. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad either.
In between there are the Redbox Kiosks which rent DVDs at $1.20 a night and Blurays at $1.50. I use the kiosks for films that won't be showing up on Netflix for a while if at all and weekends to avoid poor bitrate issues when Netflix is high demand on weekends. But I rented a real dog yesterday and should have read the reviews. "The Host" is a droll sci-fi film based on the story by the "Twilight" author and obviously targeted at teen girls. Director Andrew Niccol whose "Gattaca" and "Lord of War" I like, could not save this film even with the help of Diane Kruger and William Hurt. As for the arts these is sort of a race to the bottom while Hollywood overspends on blockbusters that nobody is attending. Part of this is due to so many film grads and the low cost of production where you can make a good looking film with a sub $5000 camera (in some cases sub $1000 cameras). No excuse for bad acting either as college drama departments have that down. Something similar happened with music in the 1970s where the colleges started teaching the music business as part of the curriculum. Ever read "Star Making Machinery"? It's a book that was used to teach that back then and the author said selling records was no different from selling shoes. I used the same paradigm when it came to selling software. If people want their music and movies free then lets make everything free. On 07/13/2013 08:51 PM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: > I work with a distributor, who makes my music available on Spotify, iTunes, > Amazon, etc. The amounts received by the distributor are passed onto me > transparently. The distributor's profit comes from the amount charged for > each album's distribution, and also the cut they take from direct sales. > Spotify, MediaNet, and Napster are three of the worst. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: >> Pays artists or publishers? iTunes would be paying the record publisher >> in most cases unless the artist is a self-publisher. Same should be >> true for Spotify. Artists were generally screwed by record companies >> anyway. Recordings have long been thought of as a way to get people to >> your concerts where you make the real money though back in the day one >> could make some good money on record and mechanical royalties. As a >> musician I was amazed at how important people thought music was when >> Napster popped up. You'd think they wouldn't have cut the arts from the >> school curriculum. >> >> On 07/12/2013 12:34 AM, doctordumbass@... wrote: >>> Spotify pays artists 8/1000th's of a cent(!), as a royalty per song sale. >>> That compares to iTunes, which pays about 70 cents per song. Cheap bastards >>> masquerading as hipsters. >>> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>>> How many of these did you misquote? In some cases the bands I was in >>>> liked to misquote and often with even worse misquotes. :-D >>>> >>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/07/11/spotify-wrong-song-lyrics/2506899/ >>>> >>> > >
