What is Digg?113 Comments
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+76How dare those bastards complain about pirates taking away the livelihood of the artists!
- sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+59I'm curious as to the percentage that the artist will get. I know that around $1-2 for a CD on average goes to the music artist. Nevertheless, the RIAA is still a fat cow.
- TheWestExit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47The artist gets about $0.045 per every $.99 download. They get shafted, even more than they do on CDs.
There was a story that was front page'd mayeb a month ago about Weird Al and how he was angry at iTunes. The link has all the math behind the shafting.
http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/06/14/weird-al-yankovic-says-digital-is-a-raw-deal-for-some-artists/ - apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43I say piratebay.org and give me the artists paypal account, i'll drop em a little somethin.
- M4v3rIC, on 10/12/2007, -16/+57www.thepiratebay.org
There you go. - zacharychaos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38I have no idea why you're being dugg down but let me help you out.
www.mininova.org
www.torrentspy.com
www.isohunt.com
but none have the personality of our good friends in Sweden. ;) - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
- zacharychaos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32The music industry gets the money and the artist gets it up the rear end. Isn't that how the music industry works these days?
- sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Goes to show that the RIAA is really protecting the monetary interests of themselves and the record companies they represent, and not so much the music artists. Unbelievable.
- Smarterdanu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+228-14 cents on a 99cent song... sometimes less...
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2372.5 cents? Thats just too much.
- cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Not just these days... It's always how it has worked.
- Smarterdanu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Um...not really....they just have a contract....
- jjk5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21What? Did you miss the part where it says the rest goes to who sold the song? That'd be Apple, or any other online song seller.
- Jangles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20I really think that Apple does not make a lot off of each song. Include bandwidth costs and they make a few cents at most, if not break even.
I think they use itunes as a platform for the iPod and bank it all on iPod sales. - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Apple has said frequently that they just about break even on iTunes; the money they get per song just about covers the costs of operating the store. That goes beyond bandwidth, one must consider salaries of the people who maintain it, office space, office expenses, other expenses, possible licensing fees to various people, etc.
Bandwidth isn't a big factor anyhow. Bandwidth is cheap. A million songs a month at 3MB per song is 3TB per month. Say that for every song purchased, a user watches a hundred previews of 30 second each, or 100 million previews, divided by 6 to get the equivalent of full song downloads and you get about 17 million. Add the purchased songs, 18 million. That's 54TB per month. Convert to megabits per second, 172 megabits per second. Let's say that to account for the rest of the bandwidth (images, text/html, transactions), and to handle peaks and surges, you need a gigabit line.
OK, so we've established that a gigabit line isn't out of the question to handle a million songs a month. Now, how much does a gigabit line cost? Experience shows that $18,000 to $30,000 per month is a reasonable figure. Budget providers sell for less, and big companies can often get better deals. But let's be crazy and assume the high end, $30,000 per month. The profit on a million songs taken by apple is $220,000, so $30,000 is still a small portion. So, salaries, expenses, etc. Say the employees are paid $50,000 per year. Say that ALL other expenses can be rolled into that and say $100,000 per person per year. That's $8,333 per month. At that price, after the bandwidth costs, we have $180,000 per month left to spend, or enough for... 22 people.
Now, my figures are mostly bogus, but this goes to show you just how expensive running a service like iTunes can be, and how it isn't a stretch that Apple isn't making any money off this. Of course, they don't care, iTunes sells iPods, which DO make them a ton of money. - guywmustang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Everyone should've know the corporate fat cats would have their hand in that big cookie jar. Why else would they care so much about all those illegal downloads. Start paying the actual talented people and those who work in production, like the little worker bees, and quit stuffing your fat pockets. The record companies make me sick!
- techlinks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Wow. Worst. Article. Ever.
Maybe how much the artist gets? The other people involved. I think from now on, when an artist comes out with a CD, if I think it's worth the $15-20, I'll send that $15-$20 direct to the artist. And download the CD...or something like that.
I hate how people who download music instead of buying it think it's going to "solve" the RIAA. And another thing, do you really expect all the artists you like to continue making music if no one is buying it?
Heh. - Matrixsjd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10exactly :) the ITMS is there to sell iPods.
- stevester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8pramsay
Not totally correct. I have good friends who are on a major label and they just finished recording their first LP with the label. They have a large chunk that they are responsible for financially. And they have a separate booking agent, the label doesn't even book their shows. - killa62, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9what the artists should do is set up a website and allow people to download songs for 10 cents a piece, all go to artists, then if u really like it, maybe donate 1 extra dollar per album? that way everyone wins, cept the riaa, though i dont count the riaa as people
- macattacks10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10But why should Weird Al be mad at iTunes, it's the record companies not giving him the money. Online digital distribution is obviously the future, but the RIAA has to milk every cent they can... And it would have to be their faults for taking all the money from the digital downloads.
- SpacedCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm not suggesting that Apple make no money out of iTunes, but you're neglecting a few things...
1) iTunes is distributed around the world (by Akamai I think) using lots of redundant bandwidth, which costs a lot more than typical bandwidth $/MB prices.
2) The software engineers who write the server-side and client-side s/w need to be paid. A guesstimate at an average Apple salary in the bay area would be ~$100k for a s/w engineer, so a couple of dozen of those soon add up
3) Then there's the support staff, to maintain the servers 24/7, again around the world.
4) iTunes as a branch within Apple will have to pay for all its own marketing, and probably a share towards the ipod marketing as well
5) All the free video they host has to come out of the budget too
There's probably more costs, those are just what I could reel off the top of my head. I have had my own business though, and it's amazing just how all the small costs add up at the end of the month... I'd be surprised if Apple made much from iTunes. In fact I think it's their business plan *not* to make much money, thus creating a barrier for others entering the marketplace, while still selling loads of ipods (at a healthy profit).
Simon - colonelpanic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"The rest goes to the people who sold the song."
Higher math skills.
99.0
72.5
-05.5 (estimate for credit card company)
------------
22 cents.
Apple gets approximatly 22 cents per song. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6[quote]The music industry gets the money and the artist gets it up the rear end. Isn't that how the music industry works these days?[/quote]
No, it's always worked that way. Back before musicians had clout like they do today, they were exploited far worse than this. Many died penniless. - M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment.
- mddleNameIsEarl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Problem is, its a racket. A typical deal has the label offer a deal to an artist where they get paid in advance to produce the record. That money has strings attached- like "you guys are new, meet the producer we insist you use. He'll be taking half your fee..." So essentially a fair amount of the money goes back to the label until the artist is in negative $$ territory. Then album sales go straight to the label until they've paid back the advance.
- Inverno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@TheWestExit or anyone who can answer...
What's this deal about leasing music from iTunes? I was under the impression that $.99 gave me ownership to a song.. - Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Don't get your panties in a bunch, daza. Everyone who's anyone knows about Oink, as it's been plastered all over the web already.
All it is, is a torrent site, just like any other torrent site. ...except you need to be invited, which kind of makes you wonder what kind of magical, wonderful, things lie just behind that login page...
Um, anyway, just stick with the pirate bay. - JKVM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As it works out, .17 cents a song for a ~3MB download would mean Apple gets $57 per GB. Bandwidth doesn't cost nearly that much. If you want to talk about bandwidth, look at the Quicktime Movie Trailers site. High res HD trailers, streamed not downloaded... Nobody is paying 99 cents to watch those.
- TheWestExit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Inverno - You're using a very tricky word in terms of the law, ownership. You don't really own the song. You own that copy of the song. You aren't free to distribute that copy to anyone else. There are some people, like the RIAA, who want to limit your usage to that copy, so you are forced to buy multiple copies in different formats to fit what you want them to do. The law has sided with the user on this though.
I'm not too certain that you can lease music from iTunes. If you want to really lease a song, you have to get it from the people that own the song and whose income is threatened by your usage of that license. Normally that just means the record company, but if an artist magically owns the song, lyrics, arrangement, and played all the parts, you still; depending on what you're doing with the song, have to get it cleared through the record label. This is also really expensive.
Basically, all you can do once you buy the track is to listen to it, time shift it, and mix it, as long as you don't share/profit off of it.
@macattacks10 - Weird Al was pointing out that compared to CD sales he get 85% less money than he would normally. Internet distribution may be the future, but they way it is right now is royally screwing over the artist. If I cut 85% of your income would you be happy? - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You get the $$$ from touring, merchandise, and appearances/interviews.
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"It would be interesting to compare what the artists actually get from Apple sales compared to the Russian broadcast rights that allow sales on AllofMP3.com"
For the iTMS it depends on the contract but it's typically $0.08 (the minimum mechanical defined by law) to $0.15 per track.
On AllOfMP3 it's estimated to be a few hundredths of a cent, so the pay on the iTMS is on the order of a thousand times better -- but that's making the HUGE assumption that the broadcasting fees paid by the Russian sites eventually goes to the artists. Allofmp3.com does not reveal the statistics for which tracks are downloaded, so it's pretty much the honor system.
In short, if you use Allofmp3, don't fool yourself into thinking that the artists will ever see any real money -- the artists do much better if you instead download from the iTMS or otherwise get the music legitimately. But allofmp3 is a great deal, and you can save lots of money getting the music you love, as long as you don't have a problem with the artists getting the short end. They make the record companies look positively generous. - Inverno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I've got a friend who works at a certian major ISP. Said ISP provides him with unlimited bandwidth and a TB of disk usage. He made himself a very simple website with links to his sets, then added a paypal donate button. He brings in ~$500/month with it, more when there are new tracks.
I'm just saying it can be done without alot of overhead. - typobox43, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think the amount that the artist receives is set by the terms of their contract.
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah, 10 cents and everything goes to the artist. I'm sure the programmers, designers, support people... etc. who puts that site together would just LOVE to work for free so everything could go to the artist.
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12What a horrible article. You could cram it all into the headline. And besides, they're not calculating the cut Apple takes.
- Inverno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're forgetting the other people involved with bringing the cd to the people would have nothing to give to the people if the artist was not creating the product.
Creators, from musicians to farmers to writers to programmers (EA, I'm looking at you) get shafted. If Warner Music, Kraft Foods, DAW, or EA had any soul the product's creators would get (at least) an equal share of the profits after production/transport/marketing costs are recovered. - sremick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Of course they know "what they're getting into". It's right there on page 523 of the contract, in bold 5-point text, written in incomprehensible legalease that the lawyers they can't afford yet can translate for them.
- shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4bpapa, that's the biggest load of ***** I've heard in a long time.
riaa represents the industry itself, first and foremost.
the reason digital distribution is a threat to them is because it breaks their entire business model. We're heading back to the days where people bought only singles whereas in the 80-90s we bought albums. major revenue losses I'm guessing
what they dont realize is that they can't stop it, so they better get on the ball. - whosmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The recouping by the record company comes out of the money that the artist makes from the sale, not the record company's cut. So, let's be generous, and say that the artist gets $1 from every record sale. Let's be even more generous and say that they sold half a million records. So, they get $500,000, right? Problem is, they owe that (if not more) to the record company. Say the recording budget was $200,000. There's the $100000 advance the band received when they signed the contract. Then, you have the promotion, tour support, radio payola, expensive dinners on the company card (yes, those get billed back to the band).
Chances are, the band will still owe the record company money. Now, on those half million records sold, how much does the record company end up with? You do the math.
So don't be fooled. When you're paying money for music, be aware that the artist will likely never see any of it. Concert tickets and merchandise are a different story, however. They are the artists bread and butter. - XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It would be interesting to compare what the artists actually get from Apple sales compared to the Russian broadcast rights that allow sales on AllofMP3.com
- VesperDEM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree with elchupacabra! This article was a waste of time. The info has been out on the web for years, and the info this article describes is incorrect since he neglects to mention the artists take of the 99 cent pie.
Sometimes I wonder what the point of Digg is. To rehash old news stories over and over again, or to enlighten us. This story should never had made the front page. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As soon as any band can post their music to iTunes, the RIAA and big record companies are over. C'mon Apple, drive the stake right into their hearts and be done with them already!
Oh, and get rid of DRM already! - yves, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That was the most uninformative Digg I've ever read. Pitiful article.
- fcodc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In reality, Apple's model is much different. The record companies take nearly 80 cents, artists another 15 or so -- Apple gets less than 10 cents. Of course, they have nothing to lose since they're getting a little less than $100 per regular iPod sold.
- Ihavethespeed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6on a ten song cd $1 per cd works out to 10 cents a song, so it seems about the same.
- shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2SORRY, but the artists and producers deserve the biggest chunk. Of course everyone else should be able to make a living too, but there's nothing to work on without a song.
- chromium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"And another thing, do you really expect all the artists you like to continue making music if no one is buying it?"
Well actually most of the music I listen to is made by the artists because they love what they do, not because they are money hungry pricks. - titanass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most artists get a few cents per cd sold so I'm sure they get almost nothing per 99cent song download.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 112 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