You pay for Spotify or other streaming services? Read this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security...-fraud-n486976
Printable View
You pay for Spotify or other streaming services? Read this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security...-fraud-n486976
They won't stop at nothing to do what they want to steal people's money, man smh
I am sure that when I downloaded Spotify several years ago, I was able to listen anything I wanted without limits for free.
You guys want a producer's take on Spotify? When I produced for Motown my royalty for a single was roughly 5 cents. Spotify pays me about .00005 cents per download. I would need to sell about a million to go to McDonalds for lunch. Rip off....
^ I heard about that.
I always thought the contracts were so screwy that whatever change happened in the industry, the artist, songwriter and producer would be left out. It seems the only real money goes to the labels and publishers.
Dayum!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ralpht
Ralph, I'm beginning to think MOTOWN ripped you off, which makes whatever you make on Spotify even more sad... you should be getting more money, man... the contract smh
Exactly! This is one of the main reasons why I refuse to use streaming services.Quote:
Originally Posted by ralpht
Your experience puts a human experience into it. It also points to why the industry has been so unsuccessful changing attitudes toward, and with curbing illegal file sharing. All they ever did was shame, sue, or wag their finger saying that it's illegal. If they had put a human face on it and relate how the effects of how it hurts the content creators, and our ability to get product, it would have had more of an impact. You can't just say it's wrong and that people will pay consequences, you have to show them how what they do hurts things. OK, i'm getting off-topic here, but, it is up to the content providers to take stronger stands where they can because, right now, the record labels are making out like bandits with the streaming.
TIDAL attempted to do that but it just came off as pretentious and like a failed science project.
There are some folks suing Spotify right now for unpaid royalties but they won't get it.
It is a most concerning and shameful state of affairs.
We members are happy, with millions of others who use the internet, to be given the opportunity to express right here, with neither expectation of charge nor recompense, our personal thoughts and opinions on what has been recorded and performed, not only for our personal enjoyment, but also for the enjoyment of countless others.
All that talent has been creatively and artistically expressed, produced and presented to us, as the ultimate consumers.
It may be common business practice, but it can never be truly right that the talented people who actually contributed to the creation of the artistry we enjoy [[and not simply distribute it) then receive virtually nothing in compensation.
If Ralph is talking about royalties of five cents when Motown was in its prime, that is quite a bit. Singles were less than a dollar. That dollar had to be split with writers, producers, artists, distributors, retailers and cost to manufacture. So I think five cents is generous.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
But at least there was product involved to get that five cents from. But with streaming, what is being bought? Nothing. Streaming is either free or costs a few bucks a month to listen to. So there is not that much money to distribute to artists and producers.
The music industry as I knew it and loved it has changed dramatically. I miss the old format.
I have the new Apple service where I can listen to songs or download them and listen to them on my device for a small monthly fee.
Ralph, I will click a few more of your songs so that you can go out and buy that Mc Donald's lunch. :D
:mad::mad::mad:
Thank you, Mil. I may be able to get some fries with that burger.
Midnight, 5 cents was actually generous at that time. I don't remember what I was getting per album,
With my writer's and producer's royalty I did make several thousand dollars off of the Stoney and Meatloaf single and album.
I got you now... I never know about the business aspect so I imagine 5 cents were a lot of money in the old music industry, especially when it came to how much money that song or album would make...Quote:
Originally Posted by ralpht
Tidal is still in operation, and never say never.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
http://tidal.com/us
Ralph - do the artists fare any better from actual CD sales these days - thinking of the Culture Factory releases for example?
Mystery,
I suppose it all depends on the terms of their contracts. In all honesty, I don't know anything about them these days. I would hope the artists are getting a fair shake.
Yeah the contracts are always shady unless that artist's lawyer looks into them. Most artists [[still) sign contracts without lawyers/attorneys present... even their managers don't look into the contracts. That may be why Taylor Swift, Adele and 'em decided not to do business with Spotify, least with Adele when it came to new material.
What the labels gat the artist to do is sign "Non-compete clauses" before they even decide if they want to sign them. This locks the poor artist with a label even without a contract in case another label wants to sign them first. If the label decided not to pick them up, that artist is screwed. The labels can get away with it because it's legal. It's one of the most under-regulated businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
Non-compete clauses?! WHAT?! That's just wack... they're always trying to find ways to keep the artists lock and key! SMH So they can't even contest the contract, just sign it? Wow... that's no way to treat an artist.
In related news:
http://fortune.com/2015/12/29/spotif...llion-lawsuit/
yup! It's been going on for decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
Many times, newly-signed artists get the contract and never get to record the album. The only way they can get out of their contract is to sue. With what money? Against teams of lawyers? If they are let out of their contract, they have stipulations that say they can't sign with anyone else or record for anyone else for five years.
If an artist does record an album, the label can choose to release it or not. There's nothing the artist can do. If the label paid an advance for it, it's theirs to do what they want with. If the artist records it independently, they can't sell it or make a profit from it. Breach of contract.
Most labels pressure the artist so they won't have time to have the contract reviewed by a layer. If they don't sign, hey, they still have that non-compete contract. If anyone else signs them, they are sued, as is the label that signs them. Most labels don't want that hassle.
There are all kinds of nasty scenarios that play out. It's a miracle that artists release anything.
The reason why people rip off music without a thought is because the labels have been ripping off their customers for decades & had an "If you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?" attitude for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Never to be forgotten is the fact that it was THE LABELS who tried to jam digital down our throats, with an eye on it being like a "licensing" proposition, with DRM & that nonsense.
Despite a tax being added to blank cassettes due to their claim that home recording was going to hurt sales, which proved to be a tremendous lie & record sales proved it, they allowed their greed to get the best of them & it came back to bite them in the ass.
Remember how they were proposing that if you bought a cd, it was meant to be played in ONE machine? So despite the fact that you bought a physical CD, unlike LPs, they were trying to dictate how you could play the music.
Their brainstorm was that if you played your CD in your car, well, that was ONE machine. Now if you wanted to play that CD at a friend's party, that was another machine & your CD wouldn't be licensed for that machine.
They didn't even want people to make copies to play in an mp3 player or a Discman. They actually wanted us to by multiple CDs for different machines, even if that CD was being played in your car, your living room, or in your bedroom.
And I won't get started on them holding back key singles that once would've gotten released as a single, in order to push an LP full of crap that we didn't want.
The behavior of the labels removed the human experience from it & cause people to rebel, not to mention CD with list prices of $16.98, when LPs were between $10-$12.98 & CDs were cheaper to produce.
Then there's all of those LPs that we already owned & likely replaced, reissued on CD that were priced as though they were new releases, rather than the 30 year-old LPs which we already owned.
Unfortunately, it was the greed & total contempt of the labels toward their customers, which led us to this point. And truthfully, they have no true concern about how all of this impacts the artist. They're just pissed that THEIR OWN technology which was intended to screw the customer, has taken quite a bite out of THEIR bottom line.
ANd everyone else gets screwed in the process.
I don't see how any new artist could ever hope to get paid dealing with these guys unless they develop one hell of a live following.
Taking this a step further, if they signe an artist to a contract, there's no law that can force them to release anything. More than that, they don't even have to pay the artist an advance for the artist to get screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
One of the things which tended to be done was to take young artists into a studio & record some tracks. The problem was that even if those songs weren't released, studio time was charged & who do you think that studio time was charged to?
The artist.
Which meant that even without a record out, those artists already OWED the record company.
Now imagine if those artists recorded anywhere between 10 or 20 tracks & studio time which will be recouped from the artist, release or no release. Then think about producers who tended to record their songs on 15 different artists, mosy of which also sat in the can.
Sometimes, artists have been the equivalent of guinea pigs or a science project, their futures often rising or falling based upon a whim. And what about folks who were producing & acted as their own arrangers, without knowing that that's what they were doing & that people actually got paid for what they were doing for free?
It was a nasty business then & it's a nasty business then, except that in the age of the internet, there are more ways to get screwed than ever.
Time was when a record label would sell "cut-outs" under the table & screw artist & producer alike. Today, they do it legally via these streaming services & it appears as though the only ones who the RIAA tried to protect are the publishers & to hell with everyone else.
The entertainment business is perhaps the last bastion of the true free market. Almost no regulation or oversight.