What is Digg?86 Comments
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38But... but... but... I thought it was the pirates who were stealing from the artists?
- knightcrawler75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Sony committing shady business practices. Who would have thunk it.
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26I'm sure that Sony will Surrender.
After all, you wouldn't want to face the Dream Police.
LOVE Cheap Trick! - orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I'd hate to get hit with a 4 neck guittar
- DoctorWhohaa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Man, you don't want to get on Cheap Trick's bad side....
- toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17If anything, the artists should get MORE money for downloads than for CD sales. The CDs cost money to produce and distribute, that's money that's taken away from the artist...but for a download? All it costs is hosting, and Apple already takes it's cut...so what do the labels need any money from downloads for?
- KilgoreCarp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"The case hinges on whether a digital download is comparable to a sale of a CD, as the labels contend, or more on par with a license of a song for use on a movie soundtrack, for example, as the artists claim."
I would argue it is more on par with purchasing a cd, but 4.5 cents to the artist is *****. But I'm pretty sure we all already knew that the RIAA and major labels don't give a rat's ass about ripping off artists unless it's the labels themselves taking most of the hit. It's really abhorrent that the RIAA and MPAA run these BS ads pulling for sympathy for the robbed artists when they honestly only care about their bottom line.
(edit: I meant for this to be a separate comment) - ViRaZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Wonder if the RIAA will step up from innocent people to big time companies now?
- knight007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Seems like this is double talk by one of the big labels.
On the one hand they tell the artists that they owe them less for each download because each download is really only like someone licensing a song for use in a movie, etc...so not really worth that much and so they are not making much money off this download.
On the other hand, they (with the RIAA), go and sue people for downloading a single song for thousands of dollars (can be upwards of $150,000k) because each download is such a large loss for them.
Ummm...which is it? You can't have both....you fracking bastard RIAA/SONY/MPAA/ETC, ass clowns! - Cultist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Wait, what? Major music distributors are giving musicians less money than they should really have?
ALERT THE INTERNET. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14You're kidding, right?
Let's play this scenario out and see how you would react:
Your boss comes in to your office and says ", we're starting a new line of business selling widgets. Your skills will be very valuable in this new market, so you're going to be transfered to the Widget Unit. Since this job title didn't exist when you were hired, however, it's not in your employee contract. So, we've decided that it should pay minimum wage. Enjoy" - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The contracts with the artists don't mention how downloads are to be considered? Then the music studio doesn't have a right to distribute downloads. The music studios are pirating from the artists! Sic em, RIAA! Oh wait, the RIAA can't be bothered with policing it's own members like the Directors Guild of America does when there are so many nonmember pirates out there.
http://www.google.com/search?%22george+lucas%22+fined - breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Sony should Stop This Game, but they won't Surrender and they're definitely not gonna just Walk Away. I guess it's just the Way of the World, Ain't That A Shame.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Internet alerted.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The artists are right, albet perhaps not legally.
Sony's production costs are higher with CDs, so they can use that cost to justify lower payouts for CDs. However, since their production costs are the flat-rate cost of converting a song to iTunes format (Typically about 2-3 cents per song, maximum) they have no costs and thus no reason to rape them at the higher rate.
It's like hollywood accounting and Forest Gump. They rape, pilliage, plunder, and charge their victims for the time and resources they used to do it. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+74.5 cents?
Didn't I read somewhere that the music labels get about 70 cents out of the 99 cent purchase price on iTunes???
So the artist who we want to listen to gets 6% and the label gets 94%???
In the age of Digital Downloads, those percentages should be reversed. No distribution cost. No packaging costs. No manufacturing costs. 94% profit. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"I mean, they're suing on the basis that the songs are being used in soundtracks or movies, but they are clearly not."
No, they're suing because an iTunes sale is more like a soundtrack/movie license sale than it is like a physical CD sale, and it should be paid accordingly. There's no overhead cost of manufacturing and distributing CD media, so Sony BMG shouldn't be keeping the share of the revenue that, for physical CD sales, goes to recouping that overhead cost. - jimphelps, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Wow, Sony's trying to trick Cheap Trick. Who knew!
- macfanboi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not that Sony doesn't deserve this now, but Sony isn't stealing royalty fees, Cheap Trick and the Allman Bros' lawyers have found a contractual loop hole.
"Bob Kohn, founder of indie digital-music store eMusic and now CEO of royalty processing service RoyaltyShare, said that contracts that have been signed in the past five years should clearly stipulate how to treat digital downloads, but that older contracts for veteran bands such as the Allman Brothers or Cheap Trick might not. He said newer contracts treat digital downloads like a CD sale and thus allow for the smaller payments to artists." - mrbro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's not as simple as the blurb suggests, their contract with Sony doesn't say anything about how much they get out of digital download sales. Sony says digital downloads are equivalent to CD sales. The artists they say it's the same as licensing for movie soundtracks (or something), which pays a higher share.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Anytime an artist takes a stand against the corrupt labels, it should be dugg out of principle. So, dugg. I expect that with Sony's resources they will win the case, but I hope it gets publicity.
- peterjhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Holy crap... 4.5 cents of an iTunes sale goes to the artist and 65.5 cents goes to the label. That is fscking robbery. I guess they need the money for the RIAA's lawyers to sue 7 year olds. That is insane... It is not like it costs the labels much of anything to get the music on the ITMS. It is not like a CD that has to be pressed and put into a case and shipped to a store. The labels can't say that they need to cover a lot of overhead.
That is messed up!!! - xhadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well all artist should have made this argument back when pay for download music started. Which makes you wonder was it really the artist that were so upset about not receiving money for free downloads. If all they are getting is 4-5 cents then it obviously wasn't them that was upset. Sounds like Sony and most of the record industry was "crying wolf" after all.
These artist may have inadvertently stabbed the RIAA in the back, how can they (the RIAA) say "music pirates" are stealing their (the artists) profits when the artist aren't really making any money off the legalized downloads. once again 4 cents on each song... please I bet if most artist were aware of this they would probably go after their masters and market them themselves... one of these day a big artist is going to dump their label and distribute directly to online vendors and make some real money, since they won't have many production cost after cutting out the label.
Score one for independent labels!!!!!!!!! - NJank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"After all, you wouldn't want to face the Dream Police."
ahhh... they're inside of my head! - subscriber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4..."You're assuming the musicians own the copyright. I doubt that's true."
Well, when you perform music, you own the copyright to that performance by default. The confusion comes with the "mechanical" rights, which the studio usually owns.
If I write a song, I own the copyright to the song itself. If you sing it, you own the copy right to that performance. If Sony records it, they own the mechanical copy rights for that recording.
If you write, sing, record, and produce a song on your own laptop, you get all the rights, and all the money, yourself. This scares the RIAA, because they represent the studios who depend on those mechanical rights. They know their gravy train is coming to its end, so that's why they are fighting so hard now. They want to protect the dying income streams for as long as possible. - sam3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Now that's what I call a Cheap Trick.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The contracts with the artists don't mention how downloads are to be considered? Then the music studio doesn't have a right to distribute downloads."
You're assuming the musicians own the copyright. I doubt that's true. - s0ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Seriously....."According to an AP article, groups Cheap Trick and The Allman Brothers allege that Sony is paying them less than what they deserve for music downloaded from popular download sites such as iTunes. Because Sony counts such sales as the equivalent of a physical phonorecording sale, they deduct costs for packaging (20%) and breakage (15%) from the artists' royalties, just as they would if they were selling CDs through more traditional means. Seeing as how there is no physical packaging, nor physical inventory that might suffer breakage, one wonders how Sony will defend against these charges."
Do you REALLY not see the difference here? You actually believe that the artists should pay them 35% of their earnings for basically converting ONE SONG from the CD and letting Apple distribute it?
I think that 10-15% of that should be being paid to Apple instead, and 10% to the Artist. Because if it wasn't for iTunes the artist nor record company would be making a dime. But regardless, the record companies are ***** and if the artists win this case, you can expect ALL the rest of the artists in the world to seek similar resolutions. - MugatuOT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Where are all the anti-allofmp3 people now? They kept calling everyone who uses that site thieves because they were sure artists wouldn't be paid.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You can't amend a contract. A contract represents a written agreement between parties. Sony cannot institute unilateral changes at a later point.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah, after all, innocent until proven guilty ... right?
Maybe someone should alert the RIAA to that pesky little fact... - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, and my understanding is that their complaint is based on the fact that online sales don't have manufacturing and distribution costs like physical CD sales do. (At least, not costs incurred by the record label; Apple pays its own bandwidth bill.)
For a CD sale, this disputed 25.5% of the revenue would go to the label, because the label paid for the manufacturing and distribution of the CD, and wants to recoup that cost. For an iTunes sale, the label didn't pay for any such thing, so they shouldn't be taking reimbursement for it out of the artist's royalties. - trialofmiles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Contractually speaking, Sony might be correct, but this just goes to show how unbalanced record contracts can be if 4.5 cents is all an artist gets out of 70 cents. Why should Sony be getting so much? It's not like they have to cover the costs of manufacturing and distributing the songs like with CDs.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because with their current policies in place, any action on their part is negative by definition. They can't do right when they're sucking up all the profit.
- chrisrudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Personally, I would consider buying a song on-line much closer to licensing it than buying it on CD.
With physical media, you actually own a copy of the music. You are free to resell the media, convert it into other formats as you see fit, etc.
Buying music on-line, on the other hand, often yields a file encumbered with a DRM "license" which specifies what you are allowed to do with that file. - NJank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4every time you pirate, a fairy dies.
- Mizark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You didn't use loaded enough language in your headline.
- br0ken1128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I accidently gave a negative on this comment, I wasn't trying to ..
I agree completely, it's amazing how much spin goes into all this. - pwinn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'll digg it, because it's an interesting story, but the headline is overstated.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"one of these day a big artist is going to dump their label and distribute directly to online vendors and make some real money, since they won't have many production cost after cutting out the label."
Many famous artists do just that ()exceot they sell CD as well). Then they are, by definition, the record label. They then often join the RIAA. They then sometimes look for new talent to promote as well as themselves. - mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just sony... harhar
- waynechng, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sony is a pirate too. Sweet.
- CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14These guys are still alive? This is news!
- Mizark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yea but this is Digg and the story is about sony. People know if they submit stories about sony with harsh and negative slanted headline and description it will make the front page.
- doit3d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4For those who did not read it all:
"Sony is only paying artists 4.5 cents for each song" which is being downloaded from iTunes.
sounds like the Sony mafia are getting more than their fare share, which most of us knew anyway. I hope this lawsuit kicks them hard in the nut sack and starts a revolution for the artist to get their fare share. - stringycheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is it just me or is Sony just about the 2nd most unethical, greedy company in the world next to the RIAA?
- phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*Gasp*
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can amend a contract, it's called a contract amendment and I deal with them every day.
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Read again.
A CD costs money to press, package and distribute. There are hard costs on each sale.
A download on iTunes takes money to rip....ONCE. After that, the label pays ZERO and makes 70% of the sale price.
Why should the artist pay the same rate as a CD that has hard costs when there are none??? -
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is