Music Streaming Services Point to Labels in Inquiry into Unfair Artist Royalties

[Expos of 1969]

That $7.50 in 1975 is the equivalent value of $37.11 today due to inflation.

Thanks Professor but a similar show today in a non stadium setting would start at about $125.00 minimum.

 

[kc9hzn]

When music was on physical medium (vinyl, CD, tape), artists had much more control of their music and royalties but once the digital age came forward, streaming companies only wanted access to a music label's music catalogue thereby having no need to talk to individual artisits or their agents. All contract talks was done with the music labels whereby the music label could command a better deal for themselves than for the artists and that is what happened and has stayed that way.

It's no different to the business world. Employee's come up with the ideas, the designs, other employee's build that idea/design and it is done so as cheaply as possible but yet it is the owners/shareholders who see the wealth of the money. An artist comes up with an idea, produces that idea but it is the music label who see's the wealth of that idea.

I don’t buy your argument. You can’t tell me that, back in the days of physical media, artists took lead on establishing distribution in retail channels, which is equivalent to putting one’s catalog on a streaming service or on iTunes. Also, while groups like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones had considerable control over their royalties (though The Beatles deliberately set up their rights holdings to maximize their control and profit), I doubt most Motown artists necessarily had significant control over their royalties, even the bigger names on Motown.

You also seem to be blind to what role exactly the label, business, and shareholders play in a company. Artists generally aren’t as good at the bargaining table as professional negotiators. Labels argue for the label’s and artist’s interests when securing distribution rights (optimizing for pay rate and distribution) and hire people that are good at these negotiations. Shareholders provide oversight for the C suite, they lend money to the business when they buy shares from a new issue of stock, they provide signals that show the relative strength and health of a firm.

Edit: Also, ideas are cheap (and infinitely reproducible). Execution of ideas takes skill, money, talent, inventiveness. Just because I can think of the idea of a volumetric TV doesn’t mean that I deserve the money for it. If I can’t make the case for volumetric TV, why someone would want depth in the form of volume over stereoscopic 3D, or if I can’t find a way of bringing down the price of a volumetric display to something that approaches more conventional televisions, then my idea of a volumetric TV really isn’t worth anything. The value of the idea that “we might be able to extract oil from these new reserves or from this new process” depends on how economical the process or new reserve is for extracting oil, whether the larger oil market financially supports the production of new oil reserves (a price gut is just the wrong time for a new process to be coming online) and your ability to convince energy investors.

 

[UBS28]

The artists signed those contracts with the record labels. They were not forced to sign.

Why don’t they start their own label so they keep 100% of the revenue themselves then?

 

[Michael Scrip]

The artists signed those contracts with the record labels. They were not forced to sign.

Why don’t they start their own label so they keep 100% of the revenue themselves then?

Exactly.

The labels have been screwing artists looong before streaming was even a thing.

Remember all those stories from when a CD was $16 but the artists only got $1 from it?

You're right... they didn't have to sign a contract then either. But for some reason they did...

Back then the best (only?) way to make money was to tour and sell tickets and merch. It seems like those same rules still apply today!

 

[DeepIn2U]

As a full-time music producer/engineer myself, labels aren’t necessarily screwing over artist, that’s not to say they don’t have their fair share of greed like all large corporations. Labels offer larger advances in exchange for smaller royalties percentages, you can also just have a publishing deal with a label and keep a much higher percentage of your royalties. At the end of the day you could still be a successful independent artist, it’s not like labels are the GATEKEEPERS to making any sort of income in the music industry.

However does your contract as an artist prohibit you from signing deals such as:

Collaborations (recorded or live),
events (recorded or live),
signing your stage name (Madonna, Prince, Seal, names like this) to other products not related to music (Parfum/Cologne, Clothes, accessories for anything, commercial products: soaps, shoes, shampoos, colaborations with large corporations like Disney, etc)?

Remember 'ownership in perpetuity for all time'.

It's been a trend that now a staple for just over a decade:
Every artist collaborates with others in music, product placement by announcing a product/brand in the song for videos (Mike Will markets himself and too many rappers rep a vodka company; hinted at by Busta Rhyme's song pass the corvossier). Streams should demand a higher than 20 cents for a full track stream.

 

[wanha]

Thanks Professor but a similar show today in a non stadium setting would start at about $125.00 minimum.

This all started (both your comment and mine) in response to a comment that it'd be nice to have concert tickets for under $10, hence my professorship

 

[Tech198]

about time.. its only took 10 ..or so...years..


However most money goes to your boss too....... It seems fair, but its seems "un"fair in this way ? Why? Sounds more like we're just picking at straws. They get the most money, because the help you make the music a reality... its you think it's unfair, then everyone should try and go at it alone and see how long thet last..

Some survive, but many do find it tough.