Very long response below.... On 26 Feb 2002 at 23:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear Kate and all, > > Help me to understand the scenario of the music industry at this time. > If I am reading correctly, the conglomerates of both the radio and the > recording industry are conspiring together to put Internet radio as > well out of business. That is exactly what is happening. Here is one word which may help to put it in perspective. MTV. The major labels have vowed not to allow another MTV - meaning another independent company which they do not own that controls the distribution of music in any form or garners the attention of the mass music buying public. It is the reason why they have withheld licenses and refused to negotiate with companies with new technology. It is the reason why they are pushing for rates so high that they will price independents out of the streaming business. They want to pick who the players will be, not have an open market. They are also looking for ways to replace revenue from lagging record sales. Record companies do not get paid by radio stations for airplay. There is no sound recording royalty for that performance. However, internet streams will have to pay a sound recording royalty. The RAC on the other hand, is raising money to > operate and stand up for the rights of recording artists to be able to > move on after a seven year contract is up. By doing so, the inevitable > demise of the record industry as we know it will take place. I do not agree with this for one simple reason. By and large, the major labels no longer commit to artist development. If it doesn't happen on the first album (and even possibly the first single) they move on. This whole argument about artist development is a fallacy. A few years ago the majors dropped the artist development strategy and turned to acquiring acts from independents who would have done the artist development for them (Labels like Kill Rock Stars and Caroline for instance.) > So where does that leave artists who are not on any kind of label > scene yet, but who plan to be in some form or fashion? It seems to me > that the right thing to do is stand up for the little guy and protect > the rights of all performers. If I'm getting this, it means to stand > with the RAC and stand against the Copyright office's ruling on > Internet royalties. Does anyone want to speculate what the future of > the music industry will be like if it comes RAC prevails and the > Copyright office does not? Well, I'm not sure that the RAC has spoken out against the CARP ruling (DIMA has). RAC's only contention has been that the 50% for the artist be paid directly to the artist and not to the label which could use the revenue to recoup unpaid balances. And they had quite the battle on their hands with that one because the royalty collecting organization for sound recordings on the internet is SoundExchange which was formed by the RIAA! (Think of SoundExchange as being like Harry Fox or ASCAP.) > The > conglomerates would make you think that if RAC has its way, it will be > the end of major acts as we know it. They say it's not fair because > they need to have time to develop an artist, and what is their > incentive to sign someone if they know they may only get one album > from them before the artist becomes a "free agent." Take out the seven year exemption and deals would likely be for two-three albums, which really means that the label will then be forced to renegotiated if the artist has experienced any success. Again, if they haven't had success with the first album, the label is not likely to pick up an option on the second anyway. What about those artists who have been very happy with their > labels and have had no complaints? Do they even exist? I would welcome > any feedback because I am eager to learn how this whole thing works. > I really can't say that I know any artists who are happy with their labels except maybe one or two independents. I think the very nature of the artist/label relationship is antagonistic because both sides are trying to protect their share of the money. The artist wants the label to spend money, yet they are upset when they have large unrecouped balances. The labels want successful projects yet they don't always know which projects to spend on and the risk is tremendous. The label is in many ways a bank (or really, a hard money lender) offering artists an uncollateralized loan. Their behavior is largely driven by the risk associated with that. Brenda
