digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Courtney Love does the math, or Why you needn't shed any tears for the RIAA

archive.salon.com — Per Courtney "I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math..."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -8/+395Great explanation. You should have left the fact that Courtney wrote it since just her name is gonna stop some people from digging. She makes a great explanation, I guess she does have her sober moments
    • Revan01, on 10/12/2007, -10/+205You can get sober by drinking constantly and coming out on the other side..
    • frant1c, on 10/12/2007, -8/+91It seems to me that...

      ...OK, I'm replying to AniceAtheist, and I'm laughing right now, cool name, back to the point...

      ...the article is pretty old. She mentions Napster and MP3.com a lot.

      Other than that, it's a great read, wouldn't expect that much coherence from Courtney.
    • tyho, on 10/12/2007, -14/+43I applaud her motivation, I just don't trust her to do math. =)
    • Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+133Courtney is incredibly smart. She has a horrible image, though.
    • OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/12/2007, -19/+638Did anyone else see "Courtney Love" and "math" in the same sentence and automatically think the submitter misspelled "meth"?
    • ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+48This is old, but important.

      It ties in with another article by Steve Albini (producer for Nirvana, Jawbreaker, he was in Big Black, etc).
      http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/albini.html
    • sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+101Some of the most brilliant people I know are also the most ***** up, sometimes it just goes hand in hand...
    • rudy23, on 10/12/2007, -41/+4I dugg it only cos it had her name.
    • masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -70/+6Written by courtney love = some guy paid by her.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+86This is severely old, but still on point. Dugg up because more people need to read this.
    • coit, on 10/12/2007, -90/+8She forgot to mention the part where the band makes money when they go on tour!

      The albums and videos and such are just promotion for their tour, which is where most artists make their money.

    • sup191, on 10/12/2007, -2/+73I was going to skip this article when I saw Courtney's name on it as I've never had a very high opinion of her, but I have to give her props for telling it like it is and not being afraid of throwing names and numbers out there. I think most of us knew the RIAA loves to screw it's artists in the name of money, but it's always nice to see an artist give a written "middle finger" back to them.

      Grats to Courtney for speaking out. She has my digg.
    • coit, on 10/12/2007, -67/+4Wow, I'm gettin' dugg down quick. Guess I won't bother to point out the major glaring hole in the argument next time.

    • dorxincandeland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15FTA:
      "Maybe my laziness and self-destructive streak will finally pay off and serve a community desperately in need of it. They can't torture me like they could Lucinda Williams."
    • sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8Courtney Love's business plan: marry a talented person and inherit his songwriter's rights and then sue the other band members and spend the money on clothes and apartments and plastic surgery.

    • darkstorm777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Old Article, dugg because it needs more exposure.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -29/+91. If you think Courtney Love is smart, you're a bit dim.

      2. Her math was plagued with mistakes, both basic and huge. Her tax assumption for the band for example, she ended up putting the band members in top tax bracket because that's what their gross take was, before individual payout. So far as I know I don't pay the highest tax rate because of what I split in profits, my tax rate is based upon my individual income.

      Good point to be made, poorly supported by Courtney Love in this article.

    • lunar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ezweave

      I remember reading that Steve Albini article years ago. It may be old, but it was an excellent piece of writing and is still relevant today.
    • fartingbob, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4[Insert Curt Cobain conspiricy theory here.]
    • H3LLSL337, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18@Colt

      You're getting dugg down because you obviously didn't RTFA.
    • MrSkrilla, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Damn, I have to say I am impressed by courtey. This is a fairly well written, interesting article. I guess I need to give her some respect... I guess I understand that I would be ***** up too if my wife committed suicide.
    • DarkXanthos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@cliffzdude

      I think the point she was trying to get across is that the issue that the RIAA is pursuing has nothing to do with paying artists for their music it has to do with the RIAA wanting more money. Her other point is that song swapping is really just a more efficient way for people to trade music. In the 80s and 90s we traded cassettes and that was legal and fine, but now we have gotten more efficient they expect us to believe that that same behavior which was deemed ok before is now amoral because more people do it.

      Sorry I just don't follow that logic.
    • dontaco2000, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"At this point the 'record collector' geniuses who use Napster don't have the coolest most arcane selection anyway, unless you're into techno. Hardly any pre-1982 REM fans, no '60s punk, even the Alan Parsons Project was underrepresented when I tried to find some Napster buddies. For the most part, it was college boy rawk without a lot of imagination. Maybe that's the demographic that cares -- and in that case, My Bloody Valentine and Bert Jansch aren't going to get screwed just yet. There's still time to negotiate."

      Is this statement not ironic?

      I haven't even accidentally listened to a Hole song since I left college.
    • Disgone, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Call me crazy, but whens the last time you happened to accidentally see an episode of CRIBS and damned the RIAA for making the artists live a life of poverty. Imagine what they would be driving if the RIAA gave them a fair share. 5 Bentleys instead of only 2?

      I dislike the RIAA just like everybody else here, but this kinda over sensationalizes their 'tight' financial situation.
    • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15The Steve Albini article is excelent but there are a lot more people in the music industry with similar stories to tell.

      Courtney Love's Letter to Recording Artists:
      http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html

      Janis Ian, The Internet Debacle:
      http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

      Janis Ian, Follow up to Internet Debacle:
      http://www.janisian.com/articles-perfsong/Fallout%20-%20rev%2011-23-05.pdf

      And I am sure there are plenty more.
    • NetJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@disgone
      If artists got a fair share there would be more of them, better variety in music and maybe the prices of some music would go down. The wildly successful wont change, but that's not an excuse to support the lawyers that feed the record industry.
    • colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ezweave,

      you left out "God of All Men" as part of Albini's title.

      do not disrespect your creator.
    • coit, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4@ H3LLSL337

      I did RTFA, that's why I know her math assumes the costs of a tour ($200,000), but assumes, I guess, that the play for free, because there's no revenue listed for tour profits.

      I'm not defending the RIAA, I'm just saying that there is money to be made with this model for the most popular artists.
    • LACHRYMIST, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1"So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven."
      huh?
    • cam503, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If this isn't Diggnation material, I'm disappointed.

      Great article, questionable math in some cases, but Love does a great job exposing the larger issue at hand here. Artists are getting screwed by labels, and I give an ovation to her for sticking up for the artists and the music, and I hope an online distribution model connecting the artist directly to the consumer is ultimately what is done to liberate the artists from this industry. This is exactly what the music world needs. I'm tired of the predictability and flavor of the month attitude employed by the record labels.

      They're turning art into a science, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
    • lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is very interesting but it is actually pretty old. She has even more of a point now that technology has advanced. While prices for recording studio time have probably not fallen, the ease of recording your own album has improved drastically. You can get near studio quality albums for under 10k in computer and home recording equipment. Getting your music out is tons easier too. That simple fact has made the RIAA more of an absurdity than any other factor.
    • CalvinLawson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow...suddenly my dislike for CL went down a few notches. Great stuff, I don't care if it's in the archives.
    • Endoplasmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I realize the article is old, but I'm happy to have come across it now. I'm a huge fan of music and to get an inside look at how the industry is always intrigues me. My sister went through the same process and I've come to realize that the industry is one ***** up place and it didn't seem plausible that the RIAA could ***** it up even more.

      Either way, kudos for Courtney for speakin' out, and where was I when she played that Cola concert?!
    • humperdeath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Oh Snap!
      She made a lot of assumptions with the dollar amounts, but the process is clearly laid out there. Yo-ho, yo-ho a pirates life fer me!
    • Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Too bad she never has any of those, "making anything that comes close to resembling music", moments ;_;
    • godd4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bloody amazing article
    • jsballardx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Every time I read this headline I think it says "Courtney Love Does Meth" and I chuckle.
    • steepdecline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ humperdeath, and for those who agree with him/her
      I myself signed a contract with Capitol in 2000, and her numbers are almost EXACTLY the numbers in my deal.
      except we had a 16% royalty rate (not 20 - which as courtney wisely stated, NOBODY gets 20) hell I had to pull wacky stunts to get 16.
    • radix33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I read the article because it was Courtney's. Otherwise it would be just another rant by someone who pretends they know the record industry.
    • brydude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5When does she talk about killing her hubby?
    • taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is exactly why I give away my music. Once I start thinking about contracts and dollars when I'm making music is right about the same time it begins to suck.

      Here is my FREE music
      http://taylorhayward.org
    • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Courtney Love...hmmm first thing that comes to mind is crack whore :)
      The article was good...I don't think it will benefit her though, her "music" sucks...:p
  • romulcah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26good article - so it seems Courtney Love is coherent some times...
    • sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7most lucid and intelligent thing to come out of her mouth
      i am betting ghost writer, but still awesome anyway(not serious i think she wrote it, just sounds so un courtney love)
    • Alfdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+59Something I thought I would NEVER say..."I just gained respect for Courtney Love".
    • bearda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This was actually required reading for a class on rock music I took in college. Very good article.
    • howski, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1she totally didn't write that. not all of it, anyway.
  • phizzpop, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1She's a good writer but not a good enough judge.

    Updated story - See why Paula is staying and Courtney isn't joining American Idol
    http://www.indierockcafe.com/2007/01/courtney-love-does-math-may-judge.html
  • nekitip, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2If the math sounds interesting, read this too: http://digg.com/music/The_Problem_With_Music_by_Steve_Albini
  • ifonly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33"Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million. So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven. "
    • mikelostcause, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I've been in and around bands and radio for years and its pretty right on what she's saying. I know members of a band that are now on MTV regular play and one of the members is working at a starbucks to make his rent payment. I've seen bands get locked into contracts just to have the label not invest any money in them essentially dooming the band (all content is owned by the label and they aren't going to put out your content). I believe Atlantic currently dooms more than 90% of the bands they sign in this way, the other major labels aren't much better.
      Most labels don't really pay actual money to have songs played any more. Most have gone to bartering with CD's, t-shirts, concert tickets, appearances, gifts for radio station crew to get on air adds for shows, drive time plays of the music, and contests for the merch.

    • MKREdit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Most labels don't really pay actual money to have songs played any more. Most have gone to bartering with CD's, t-shirts, concert tickets, appearances, gifts for radio station crew to get on air adds for shows, drive time plays of the music, and contests for the merch."

      They still pay actual money what has changed is that instead of paying 30 PD's in 30 markets they pay 1 guy at clear channel and the 30 markets are covered.
    • MontyPhil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah, I suppose if i worked at 7-eleven for 200 years I may come close to 4.4 million... Great... Man I feel sooo sorry for artists now.
  • FickyFicky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+47Wow...surprisingly lucid and well written. This piece is long as hell, but it's worth reading to the end.
    • undetected, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is the first time that a reason to search for and support independent artists has actually motivated me. All the other times, I've just been made to feel like I'm a sucker with no taste in music.
  • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It would be pretty awesome if a large number of artists sided with her and essentially formed their own collective/label. The only thing that keeps the record companies in buisness is their ability to get exposure for their artists, if people had some way to match this the RIAA would die.
    • d1rtfarm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"The only thing that keeps the record companies in buisness is their ability to get exposure for their artists, if people had some way to match this the RIAA would die. "

      The Internet. I have "found" so much great music in the decade or so I have had net access, music that I would mever have know about if I was still at the mercy of the Record/Radio industry. I am not alone either, and that is why the RIAA is scared ***** about the web. They don't give a green turd about .mp3s, they are in full-on panic mode because the net offers almost free, unlimited promotion for indie bands who no longer need to sell their souls to make a living.
    • Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Her article brings to mind 2 ideas that someone (I am not that someone and I realize that - I have neither the means nor the imagination nor the experience) should implement:

      1) A web store that goes directly between the users and the artists, sort of like that indy Palmgear.com site - 50% of the proceeds go to the store, 50% goes directly to the author. Let artists sign up with this site (after being confirmed that it's not a pirate/scammer). Let them submit their new music they legally own (can you imagine all the legal battles that would ensue?) and sell it through that site.
      It's a commie iTunes store, basically. Songs cost a dime, the artist gets a nickel. Sell the album for a buck and in includes bundles album art and whatever fun addons the artist wants to include. They get $0.50 per. It's less than they are making now per album, but my god would the sales be higher. For a nickel people wouldn't even bother pirating music anymore.

      2) An official "tip" site along the lines of what Courtney was alluding to. I flat out refuse to buy music. I won't support the RIAA. Sorry. But if I download an album, I'd love to be able to dump a few bucks into the artist's coffers if I like the album and I like their attitude. It's more of a grassroots thing but if it got enough publicity it would be interesting to see how karma becomes a player in the business.
    • Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"A web store that goes directly between the users and the artists, sort of like that indy Palmgear.com site - 50% of the proceeds go to the store, 50% goes directly to the author."

      http://www.magnatune.com/

      No DRM and no RIAA. You can download the music in all the major formats, including FLAC.
    • bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We often forget that there are billions of people who either don't have internet access, have very slow internet access, or barely have a working knowledge of their computer and/or the internet. We're in our own little "nerd-vana"; the internet and "web stores" are not a viable complete replacement for the real world and real music stores. This is one reason why CDs still outsell downloads nearly 20 to one.
    • goofballjm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's predominately why many bands end up creating their own private label to release their music. For example, Boulder, CO based Big Head Todd and the Monsters were dropped from their deal with Columbia several years ago. They sell 1/4 of the albums they once did since going independent and make as much or more money than they did with Columbia, and they own the rights to their own music.
    • monkeyboy7706, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I remember about 7-8 years ago in the days when napster was free David Bowie wanted to sell his music online himelf through his own site. He was basiclly told by record stores that they would stop selling his back catalogue if he did. At the time he saw a better way but had to give up to protect his record sales.
  • skipere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow, I'd start to have respect for her .
  • sumrandommember, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Hasn't this been on the front page 3 or 4 times already?
  • kafraco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Good article. It gets my digg despite its age.
  • controlguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+83Just a point --- that article was written nearly 7 years ago. If we're all talking about it now and saying, "Finally! Something from the other side!", then it shows how very little an impact it made then and, possibly, how little it may make now...
    • AK10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29One of the main points of digging is to get more people to see stuff that needs seeing. Being old does not make it any less valid.
    • Estaris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm just glad they dugg it up again so that people like me can be more informed. The more people know of how this huge industry operates, the better chance there is that people can make informed choices on how and what they buy in the music business.
      I still can't believe I read something from C. Love that was articulate enough to have a train of thought and sound half way decent!
      When C. Love becomes a voice of reason, you know the world is coming to an end. (/joke tag for those who tend to not seem them.)
    • combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I didn't own a computer until 1999. I didn't have internet until 2000. Back when this came out, I was clueless about the whole RIAA/Napster debate. I first saw the "Money good, Napster bad" video in 2002. All you'd have to do is swap a few names and suddenly this article is up to date. You wanna know why? Because it's the same battle that was happening then, except now it's exploded into World War 3.0.
  • GeneParmesan, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4I guess that makes up for killing Kurt Cobain.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=IaLWIPcraNo
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -47/+3Courtney, if you can read this, I think you are such a sweety!!!

    I love ya babe!!!
    • rudy23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16this aint a fan club message board. shooooo
  • duczduczducz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3man this is awesome, i sure wish i had this as a resource to a report i did in 2004.....oh wait.....i did
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3I get tired of hearing about bands signing bad record deals. If it's a bad deal - DON'T SIGN! Nobody is screwing them except themselves because they haven't thought through the entire contract and what the actual payout is. They just see "Oh, $2M! Where do I sign!!!"
    • SolipsismX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The point is that there aren't good record contracts out there. You have to go through a whole contract before you can even begin to negotiate for a better second contract. The dumbest part is that the artists usually sell less during this period of their career and this is when they are making the most money. And if you read the article, or know anything about the subject, you'd know that the hypothetical contract she used was a LOT more generous than the kinds that new artists are offered.
    • Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12If they don't sign they won't ever get a contract. That's the problem. There's no such thing as a good record label contract.

      If you get a lawyer/manager to look over the contract they'll edit it a little bit to lean towards your advantage *but* even if you have the best contract in the biz, it's still a HORRIBLE contract. That's the price to pay as an artist, and we're pissed and want to change it.

      Bands like Metallica are rarities.There's maybe only 10 bands, literally, in all of America that really make the money they deserve from their albums. The thing is that they got there by luck and hype, not particularly talent and hard work. Courtney's figures were extremely generous, by the way.
    • Jerim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When you are a new, unproven band, you pretty much sign whatever they put in front of you. Who are you to demand more money? It is during the second contract, after you have made the company millions of dollars, that you actually have some leverage.
    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Stupid question, but have you ever seen one of these record deal contracts? If they look anything like the vast majority of contracts out there then they are written in some archaic form of legalese that only the lawyers that wrote the contract can understand, and the bands just get the bullet point list of what the contract means. Also, most bands are not given time to review the contract in depth (i.e. have their own lawyer look at it) and most of the time the contracts are non-negotiable. As in "Sign it, or find another label." As it turns out, most people will agree that having a job is better than not having a job and having to keep looking for a job.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1You see - this is the problem. If nobody signed the contracts, they would have to change. The fact is, yes, you only start making money on the second album of a contract, but you know what - you're not making any money without the contract on the first album, so what's the difference?

      This article is 7 years old and there are many more distribution outlets now, so quit bitching. It's called BUSINESS.
    • clifyt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6"I get tired of hearing about bands signing bad record deals. If it's a bad deal - DON'T SIGN!"

      Thank you! I've been a professional musician for longer than I have been anything else. Coming up with a good deal is as easy as getting yourself an INDEPENDENT manager (preferably lawyer) and slugging it out. If they want you, they will change you contract. If you are one of a hundred others that all sound exactly the same, expect to get the same treatment as the other 100 bands they have lined up. Its not rocket science.

      The incredible stupid thing I see in articles like Courtney's is that she obviously did not read her contract. Why is it that musicians expect to be treated as business professionals, yet can't read. Its not as if this stuff is rocket science. Most of the details I didn't care for in my contract were things that my lawyer also didn't like after I gave it to him. Of course, the labels made it sound like it was a sign it now, or we give it to someone else, and I walked away. Most states allow for a cooling down period to sign a contract specifically for this (meaning that after being presented with a contract, you have so much time to review it, in which the terms cannot be changed as punishment for not signing right then...or at least that is how it was explained to me).

      And MOST things that end up costing you money are things that you can control. For instance, given advances and walking around money -- that is paid for out of YOUR profits, not the profits of the album (i.e., if the label makes $5M and gave you $100k, you don't repay this after the album makes back the initial $100k, you pay it after YOU earn $100k...which might mean that this $100k now cost you $1M to repay...I have as much pity for someone that does this as idiots that use Rent To Own stores).

      But guess what? This is ALL detailed in the contracts. I actually made a profit when I was actively in the industry because I read this first (and trust me, I was no one...I might have to help with another album to pay off grad school and have REALLY thought of taking another year off to do this...but I'm already 30 something and wasted a good part of my life). Businesses aren't around to give away favors. Their is a reason its called the Music *INDUSTRY*. When musicians learn to treat the industry as if it were a business they wouldn't be screwed.
  • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -28/+2Ok, if I get advanced 1 million dollars, then make 1 million and give back the 1 million I was advanced.. that does not equal 0.

    Her examples says: advanced 1 mill and 1 mill to make the albums, make 2 mill on royalties, then give back the recoup money of 2 mill = you still have 1 million dollars.. not zero.

    • bootle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+181 + 1 - 2 = 0 ??

      Please tell me what I'm missing, because I can't see it
    • bootle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The $2 million in recoupable expenses is more than the advance and the cost of the album. It also includes record promotion, advertising, royalties, contract payouts, music videos, etc. So, it's $2 million in profit minus $2 million in expenses and debt = $0
    • daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3MATH TROLL!
    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Ok.. read what it says

      recording industry gives 1 mill so the band/singer has 1 million dollars

      recording industry spends 1 mill to make album for the band/singer
      expecting to be paid back both of the 2 million

      THEY MAKE 2 million dollars on the album so they have 3 MILLION (2 mill made money + 1 mill given by the recording industry)

      they have to pay back 2...

      they have 1 million...

      HER MATH and YOUR math is wrong...

      it only COSTS 1 mill to make an album that makes 2 mill... your logic is messed up. It's like that riddle of the 5 dollars.

    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1She's doing the same thing with money as this riddle:

      Where did the other dollar go?

      Three travelers split a supposedly $30 hotel room. The owner later realizes that he overcharged by $5, which he gives to the bellboy to return to the guests. Not knowing how to split $5 three ways, the bellboy pockets $2 and returns $3 instead. Thus each guest paid $9 for rooms and the bellboy got $2, for a total of $29. Where did the other dollar go?
    • MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Make" is referring to gross income, not net profit. The album grosses $2M. The band pays back the recoupables, and the band nets $0.
    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Mike: but what you forget is that the 2 million that was paid out by the recording industry is 1 million given to the singer.

      THE RECORDING INDUSTRY pays out 2 million and gets back 2 million...

      THE SINGER gets 1 million from the recording industry, then 2 million from album sales, then pays back 2 million to the recording industry.

      It's TWO different revenue streams...

    • bootle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty confident that the recording industry collects the $2 million in sales, not the artist. What this means is that they will say, 'OK, you owe us the $1 million advance we gave you, and we keep $1 million for what we additionally spent to make the album, and you get the rest,' which is $0.
    • dvsbastard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Ok, if I get advanced 1 million dollars, then make 1 million and give back the 1 million I was advanced.. that does not equal 0."

      Let's reorganise your equation:

      You are advanced 1m, then you immediately pay it back (with the money you were just given)... You now have 0... Then you make 1 million... That million is yours - fair enough... However you have just made 1 million without any spending!

      Your equation forgets about expenses... And if you have none, why advance the 1 million in the first place?!
    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1bootle:

      read the article.. plus it'd be REALLY stupid if the contract holder gets the sales as well

      that still doesn't equal zero either:

      As a singer/group: I get advance 1 million... I get to pay that back. I get to pay 1 million to get the album out there.

      Then the contract holder makes 2 mill off the sales... I get nothing so I can only pay back the 1 mill advance (which wouldn't make sense to even get it) or the 1 mill to make the album

      That makes -1 mill, still not 0.

    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1dvsbastard: that was my example to show the extra mill. The real equation has an extra mill in expenses but also 2 mill in made money.

      Here:

      Contract Holder: Advance so group can have cash (-1 mill), Make album (-2 mill), Get 2 mill from group to recoup advance and cost to make album (even)

      Group: Get advance (+1 mill), good group sells 2 mill worth of albums (+3 mill), pay back Contract Holder 2 mill for advance and cost to make album (+1 mill)


      The math is there...you can digg me down all you want because you want to believe her, that's fine. But the reality is her numbers are wrong.
    • dvsbastard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Group: Get advance (+1 mill), good group sells 2 mill worth of albums (+3 mill), pay back Contract Holder 2 mill for advance and cost to make album (+1 mill)"

      You are once again assuming that the cash advance is not being used for expenses. So why are the record companies giving the artists the 1 million if all they are doing is handing it back later?!

      Why do the recording labels give artists two million, if (according to your equation) they are only spending 1 million?!
    • d4v3l3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@threemagic...
      You wrote, "Her examples says: advanced 1 mill and 1 mill to make the albums".

      Actually, her example says the band got a $ 1 million advance, from which the cost of making the album ($500K) was taken.
      Then, the label forked out another $1.5 million for the 2 videos ($1million), the tour support($200K), and promotion ($300K) for the album, of which the band had to pay back $1 million.

      The band received a $1 million advance, and owed another $1 million for the videos/tour/promotion.
      The band made $2 million from royalties.
      Net profit for the band in her example is $0.
    • emehrkay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2treemagic, *****. where did that dollar go?
    • combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As for the hotel room riddle, I'll explain it because I've never seen that before.

      It's a simple case of misdirection. 9*3 does equal 27, but you're thinking you have to add the 2 that the bellboy took to that. In fact, the 2 the bellboy took would be a part of the cost for the guys. So they paid $27, or 25 and 2, and got $3 back.
    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1d4v3l3r : THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT!!!! From what you said:

      The band received a $1 million advance, (they have 1 million dollars to have fun with but have to pay back...however it's in THEIR pocket) right now that makes them 1 million dollars richer

      The band made $2 million from royalties. (right.. and since they haven't paid back the million yet, they have 3 million.. +1 from record company, +2 from the album)

      and owed another $1 million for the videos/tour/promotion. (ok.. so they owe the 1 mill advance back and they owe this, they pay it out of the 3 million. They now have 1 million)



      Net profit for the band in her example is 0.. nope.. 1 you proved it


      see what everyone is doing is counting just the 2 million the contract holder.. you forget there's another 2 million being injected from an outside source to add to the income of both the contract and band.
  • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -7/+217 YEARS OLD!
    • evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9i was gonna say.. it sure feels like i already read this almost a decade ago. but it was "only" 7 years ago. great "news"
    • PuffyC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+137 years old and look how far the music industry has progressed.
    • argonauta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+137 years, but it feels so contemporary. Amazing that after 7 years, record companies, piracy and the RIAA are still issues.
  • rudy23, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I would hit it like a . . . . . . .
  • JESUSREAM, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Ill think about that article next time im watching mtv cribs.
    • Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3funny you say that... because i would be curious as to how many of those people actually own those homes. their record companies do. why do you think 3 rappers live together? because the company says "here go live in this house."

      if they were REALLY rich they would all have their own places.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"why do you think 3 rappers live together?"

      Not only that. They describe the house as if they've never been in it before.

      And wasn't there a big controversy about some rapper showing off a house that was rented?
    • wildrice128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How many artists have you seen on Cribs? Musicians with that lifestyle are small percentage of all the working musicians in the country or the world. Just because a select few have made it to the 'high life' (which could even be a facade) doesn't mean there aren't independent bands or lesser known signed bands that struggle.
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good stuff, basically stating what I think most people already know about the RIAA.
  • gimmeslack12, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1We are aware that this article is SIX years old? So I'm not exactly impressed.
  • CheezIt9109, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I read this a long time ago, some of it is a bit disorganized, and it's quite lengthy...

    But it is a very important piece, and should certainly not be dismissed simply because Courtney Love is associated with it (I wasn't sure if she wrote it herself or only read it in a speech).
  • stormlifter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6SIX years old or not sir, it's a great way to turning the knife. The reality that piracy is stealing can't be denied, but neither can the crooked practices of companies like RIAA. They call us the pirates, they try to frame us with piracy being the same as stealing a car and all that nonsense, when at the same time they 'legally' steal from their customers and their clients at the same time while using the US Court System as their legal-power expressway.
    • Er0z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals." - HM, 1986
  • marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That convinces me all the more to buy music online--and directly from the musicians (if possible).
    I don't see why a good music site couldn't provide the distribution and sales for bands, and at a reasonable fee. Word of mouth and peer-to-peer reviews could be their marketing. Anything to bypass the record companies and awful radio station playlists. I'm so sick of it all.
  • grungegbunny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1the most intelligent thing Courtney Love has ever published.
    Who'da thunk?
  • kevinkace, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0She's right about most of this, but not about on point, " When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever."

    Not true, the song writer almost always forever will own the intellectual property of the songs, and will collect royalties for them up until 50 after they are written. The actual recording will forever be be owned by the record company, because they made the recording possible. But if the band uses their own $ to re-records and re-releases the songs (often not allowed in the original contract with the record company) then they will actually make some loot.
    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, the point about the artist not owning the music was in regards to the "work for hire" clause in most contracts - that clause says that any work that you produce while under the contract is the property of the company and not the artist. This is the same sort of clause that developers have to sign in contracts and those basically sum in that any intellectual property you produce belongs to the company. Hence the point that the clause should not be applied to artists.
    • tjrc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@darkstar99

      No, kevinkace is right. The addition to the works-made-for-hire clause (which has since been removed) was for sound recordings (that is, the recorded performance) and not for musical works (that is, the songs themselves).

      Courtney's wrong, by the way, about what its effect would have been. The change to the statute did not make sound recordings works-made-for-hire. It added sound recordings to the list of types of works that *could* be made works made for hire *if* the artist and record company signed an agreement *saying* that they were works for hire. Without that written agreement, they don't become works made for hire.

      It's a moot point, because record companies require signed agreements assigning the rights anyway; so whether they get the rights via a signed writing that says they're assigned or a signed writing saying they're works made for hire doesn't matter much. (And, of course, it's really moot now, since it's been removed.)

      The only area they do matter is that if the rights are assigned, the artist can take them back, 35 years later. For long-lived recordings, that could be attractive to the record company.
    • tjrc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@kevinkace

      The term of copyright is the author's life + 50 years, not 50 years after the work was written.
  • MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I suddenly hate Courtney Love a little less. I hope more artists follow her by leaving the big labels.
  • Rufasevach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2whoa, whoa, whoa.
    Courtney Love knows how to do math??
    When and how did this happen?
    • unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Don't forget, this was 7 years ago... Coutney hasn't sold a record in ages, and spends more time battling herself than the RIAA these days.
  • pbgswd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1yay Courtney, you turned over a new leaf.
  • catfish182, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I will digg this as it was a great read, but i find it hard to beleive that Courtney could write with this much intelligence.
    I dont think she is dumb but this is well formated and well put. She never struck me as a person that could do that.

  • enforcerpsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This is old, but dugg anyway. She made this point a long time ago but I am glad to see people are finally noticing the gestapo, racketeering BS the record companies pull.
  • embeejay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9this is from 2000 how do you figure it is news?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's anti-recording industry
    • argonauta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14if you replace napster and gnutella by Limewire and bittorrent, and remove the date, it's funny that the article could pass as recent. That's the irony, yes, it's old news, but things haven't changed at all.
  • speedeep, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Did anyone notice this is from June 2000? Everyone is reacting like this is recent news. Courtney took this stance long before it was popular. Yes, she is intelligent and well-spoken. Did you think the glam-slut image was for real. It's called marketing. Oh, and I generally do like Courtney Love and Hole's music.
  • Oldschoolhack, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Dugg down because she is a fascists who doesn't respect musicians hard work.

    She should have let Nirvana release the music they wanted to, and given them the money they deserved.
  • igeekout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2She did write it. But she did write it a year after Steve Albini wrote something very similar.

    http://negativland.com/albini.html
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The background image on that page is ***** terrible, and ***** up the readability of the text.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3She doesn't consider all the bands that fail and never give record labels a dime.
  • LittleDanzig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I liked this article better when Steve Albini wrote it.

    http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/albini.html
    • deemadden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, it's kinda been considered common knowledge for some years now that she ripped off Albini's article. A more appropriate Digg would have been for his article, not Courtney's.
  • getliquified, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2can a brotha get some cliff notes ???
  • jerryn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow! The Media portray's Courtney as a dumb drugged up bimbo, but hell she comes out pretty damn intelligent in this article. Hell it's pretty damn
    logical to me. My Youngest son, he's 15. he's learning guitar and getting pretty good. His band's name is "the Most Popular Losers".. well
    his plan is not to deal with a record company, and put out mpegs, and sell CDs cheap on a website, give lower sampled mpegs and sell high sampled mpegs.
    A hobby, right now he wants to be a vetranarian. Anyway.. ***** Courtney makes sense here. Damn why don't artists dump the RIAA, run the band as a private
    business. Promote the band through the internet, get free publicity on TV. Radio does not matter as much anymore. Hell I haven't listened to my radio for
    2 years, I listen to my IPOD and podcasts of new bands and stuff. Come Courtney, givem them hell!
  • cassmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Personally, I turned my Radio off a long time ago and use other sources to find music. You should do the same.
  • Musaffa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Look, I don't mind Courtney Love and I think this rant of hers is admirable, no matter how old it is. But come on, what are these number supporting? The music or the lifestyle? I have no doubt that it's expensive to promote an image, make videos, and tour around the world, but those things have nothing to do with music; It's about becoming famous. If she wants to drop 2 million+ to become a rock star, thats her prerogative. Nowadays, artists who are in it for the music can easily distribute their own content. They can charge any amount they want, keep 100% of the profit, and retain ownership of their work. If it's good, people will listen. If it's great, people will tell their friends. You don't need a major record label to sell music, you need one to get on MTV.
    • Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If it's good, people will listen."
      I think you overestimate the sheeple. That's like trying to compare some youtube broadcasted show against desperate housewives, it sucks, but because of how its promote and delivered it gets more viewers.
  • djfelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This article is close to 7 years old. I'd like to see someone dissect this article in a then-and-now fashion to see what's changed, and what hasn't.

    The sheer fact that she didn't mention the cookie cutter celebrity of American Idol is evidence of how old this article is. I'm sure she has lots of colorful words for that ...
    • AgntOrnge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was reading this thinking the same thing and even though I can't begin to dissect it, I don't really think much of anything has changed. Seven years later and we still see things like MS giving Universal $1 for every Zune and pressure on Apple to raise prices on singles sold via ITMS. I don't think the industry has learned anything about technology.
  • diggSJaustin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Article published: June 14, 2000. First iPod released: October 23, 2001.

    A significant portion of her argument is predicated upon the assertion that mp3s sound "cruddy." Well, maybe they do, but digital music was obviously still the future when she wrote this over six years ago. I'd say this article became outdated approximately a year and a half after she wrote it.

    Still, it's worth (re-)reading it today for some insight into the artists' side of the record industry's story.
    • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Outdated? Yeah, the artists get less money now.
  • Cirrius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have always hated Courtney Love with a passion...right up until I read this.

    Kudos to her for sharing how it is from the inside. I am sure it's even worse now for artists than when the article was written, as the Record Companies Fight Piracy by taking even more from the band.
  • drobati, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Id have to say, if Courtney Love really wrote this, then I have gained a lot of respect for her.
    She is quiet intelligent, a lot more then what her stereotype is played out to be.

    ***** the RIAA.
  • CameronHigh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Toni Braxton also declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold $188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of a terrible recording contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. Bankruptcy can be an artist's only defense against a truly horrible deal and the RIAA wants to take it away."

    My math is probably bad, but:

    $188mil / $15 = approx # of CDs - 12.5 million
    12.5 mil CDs / .35 = her money - 4.4 million dollars

    Even with a garbage contact (which she signed) it's still a decent chunk of money.



    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Now subtract expenses. Read the article.
    • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's s decent chunk of money but FTA, the music company pays for NONE of the expenses of putting out the music. ALL of the money comes out of that 4 million.
      The artist pays for pressing and distributing the albums.
      The artist pays for promotion.
      The artist pays for the video.
      etc etc
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And over how many years? Heck I'll probably make a million in a few years by your logic.
  • sstidman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Is there any possibility that Courtney didn't actually write this piece? I am thinking it was ghost written. That text is way too far off from the Courtney that we see on TV to believe that she actually wrote this. It was just too well written.
  • sepllcehck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I bought a domain name a year ago :

    bypasstheriaa.com to set up a site with names and address for bands so that fans could send money directly to the band rather than go through the current system. I never got around to doing anything with it - I'm not too talented at creating a site like that and don't really know where to start.

    If anyone wants to help or pitch in - and make it a non-profit community driven site that allows "pirates" to pay something back (like the honor system) I'd be happy to work with whoever.
    email
    sepllcehck@gmail.com
    if you're interested in the idea or even fleshing it out. I can code css and some php - and can pick things up quickly - it's more the site design and the contacts to gather the needed information that would be helpful.
  • kenvsryu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If courtney love can undertand this so should everyone. Go to concerts and support your bands until they find a bettere way to distribute music.
  • dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Toni Braxton also declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold $188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of a terrible recording contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. Bankruptcy can be an artist's only defense against a truly horrible deal and the RIAA wants to take it away."

    That really bites, especially after announcing that her son is autistic. She needs to do what Madonna did after they told her that she wasn't getting a dime for her music because she didn't list herself as the co-writer of her songs - go on tour.

    oh, and MTV sucks crack pipe.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.