Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Who gets what in a 99 cents download?
news.com.com — Record companies keep about 72.5 cents on average for a 99 cent song, the credit card company then gets a small slice. The rest goes to the people who sold the song.
msaleem- 1602 diggs
- digg it
- 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.
- stephen2417, on 10/12/2007, -43/+8A fat cow, ahahah. Ok I'm done.
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+76How dare those bastards complain about pirates taking away the livelihood of the artists!
- Smarterdanu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+228-14 cents on a 99cent song... sometimes less...
- 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.
- 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/ - cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Not just these days... It's always how it has worked.
- 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.
- typobox43, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think the amount that the artist receives is set by the terms of their contract.
- 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.. - 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.
- 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. - 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? - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2$1-2?
No way dude, more like about 50c :(!
artists make 5c from a single sale...sucks. - bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Honestly I think a lot of people are too dumb to realize that if it wasn't for the RIAA, there wouldn't be any artists. Think of your favorite musical acts - how in the hell would you ever even know who they were if it wasn't for the RIAA? The RIAA fronts all of the money to try and make an artist famous, and then the RIAA takes it in the rear if the act is a failure.
Now, you say "oh well I am a real hardcore rap/rock/whatever fan and I listen to the underground, not the mainstream." Oh yeah? Well, what was it that made you an underground fan? Probably listening to the mainstream first, and then delving deeper into the underground. Keep in mind that that's why it's the underground, because the mainstream, people who are content the mainstream, don't go out and seek underground music.
And that's why the RIAA is important. The way things work now is a limited number of acts are sort of in rotation of holding the spotlight at one time. This way there are only a small number of acts that are able to get famous in a given amount of time. If there was no RIAA, the music industry would be a mash of music where nobody would be able to find anything unless they really put the time and effort into looking for it. And the average person isn't going to do that. - 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.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2372.5 cents? Thats just too much.
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's about 25 points margin to the iTMS. Compare this to amazon.com, which makes 12% - 15% margin on CD dales. Best Buy makes about 30 points, I think.
Since a 25 point margin to the reseller isn't enough for the reseller in your opinion, what is the appropriate margin for the reseller to take?
Your comment was funny, though... usually it's people complaining about the high markup made by the store. You're the first person I've seen claim that a store doesn't make enough profit! - thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@shark
Out of the $0.99, a typical credit card fee is $0.25 per transaction + 5% of the selling price. Thus, $0.30 goes to the credit card companies. That's why Apple now tries to close out your "sale" at the end of each day, instead of for each song, hoping they can bundle those $0.25 fees into one transaction. Unlike with physical distribution, the music company no longer handles distribution, simply marketing and sometimes production. Since those costs are amortized, there isn't a cost of goods as there is for physical media like CDs, nor transportation costs with downloads. All the cost of goods falls on the retailer. Amazon's 12-15% pays for the packaging and website marketing, as they pass distribution costs onto the purchaser. With online downloads, the margin covers the distribution costs, so it's better to think of it as free shipping. - Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Most of you will probably disagree with me but let's put things into perspective. The record companies are the only reason the artists get exposure. The record companies take a high-risk investment every time they sign an artist. It only makes sense that they get a bigger return. All the artist does is perform and they would have no income if it wasn't for the record companies. Don't act like the artists are being ripped off. The artists become extremely wealthy fat cats in elaborate mansions and blow it on drugs or cars and other expensive luxury items. They are the rich and the famous, yet people want to donate to the artist's PayPal account. I'd rather you pirate everything.
- scar3crow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Flankk: Not all of us listen to pop, or similar genres. In extreme metal and even just standard metal (Im not talking 80s hair bands) you are considered successful if you can tour without it conflicting with your day time job, and extremely successful if you can tour and record without having to hold a day time job. Up until recently Opeth had daytime jobs, Dark Tranquillity still hold normal jobs. Just because someone puts out an album, it doesnt mean theyre going to blow their load on a mansion and drugs, many of these people have families and make music because they do truly love it.
Just saying, not every scenario is the same, not every group is from the U.S. and playing pop rock. In the metal scene, you get known by playing shows and giving out free demos or cheap ones, it is this way pretty much until you hit the higher profile rankings. Nonetheless, many of the albums I want cant be easily found, but I only listen to music where I really get a sense of the band loving the music they are making... Now where am I going to find Classica by the established Italian doom-death metal band Novembre? Amazon doesnt have it in stock, ebay doesnt have it, the local cd store cant find it... Not everyone goes bling bling with their money. Sometimes the labels do just pocket it a lot, for what isnt that big of a risk for them unless they do sink a lot of money into them, and I mean a LOT. - Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"In the metal scene, you get known by playing shows and giving out free demos"
What the hell does this have to do with record companies? Record companies take the risk, they should get the return. Period.
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's about 25 points margin to the iTMS. Compare this to amazon.com, which makes 12% - 15% margin on CD dales. Best Buy makes about 30 points, I think.
- M4v3rIC, on 10/12/2007, -16/+57www.thepiratebay.org
There you go.- mozzep, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13oink.me.uk
- 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. ;) - apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43I say piratebay.org and give me the artists paypal account, i'll drop em a little somethin.
- killerofkiller, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3oink.me.uk is teh *****
any music u want
fast speeds :) - defubar, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1You should totally send an oink invite to thenational@gmail.com
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1Can I get and oink invite? TKDWILSON@GMAIL.COM
Eric Wilson - Software2, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1wow.... invite only. That's interesting.
Care to send an invite to me? :)
software2 AT candc3.com
or AIM: CandC3com - daza, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2Stop plastering OiNK everywhere please. Digg them down if you value your account (dig this down too). OiNK does not need publicity.
- 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. - skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. If we all downloaded their music for FREE and then paid them by buying merchandise/concert tickets that would be a win/win situation for the consumer AND the artist. The record companies would get the rug yanked out from under them.
- NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I say piratebay.org and give me the artists paypal account, i'll drop em a little somethin."
Buy a t-shirt. Concerts and merchandise is how they really gets paid. - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Edit: skyshock beat me to the merchandise part. However, the artist need some album sales otherwise the label will just lock them down.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - chewbaka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@colonelpanic
That can't be right unless the artist gets NO cut at all.
Someone above said 8-14 cents for the artist which leaves 8-14 cents for apple.
- 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!
- 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.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
- bacchus213, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Any The Who reference gets a digg from me!
- serenityn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The who?
- 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.- Matrixsjd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10exactly :) the ITMS is there to sell iPods.
- 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.
- 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
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -22/+8Understand that artists are EMPLOYEES. They are working for the record companies.
- Smarterdanu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Um...not really....they just have a contract....
- pramsay, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Agreed Rickler, the record companies are "recouping" the money they shelled out to the artist for studio time, engineer, producer, marketing, pressing cd's, artwork etc. The record companies are investing in the artist and to be fair a lot of the time that investment goes belly up. Artists make money touring, end of story. Artists just need to finish their current contracts and start selling albums on their own labels.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5i love that the music industry is beholden to steve jobs.
- Gm7Cadd9, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Worst article ever! If little Timmy had to write a paper on the economic breakdown of legally downloaded music I am afraid his teacher would have failed him hardcore for an article like this.
What they don't tell you is where and how the 72 cents is divided up, they made it out like the artist gets nothing, when in fact the cut going to the artist comes out of that 72 cents. I understand hating the RIAA at times, but stealing is not a legitimate protest.- M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment.
- TexasCanuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As a hobbyist musician, I don't know if I'd ever want to make it into a career.
There just isn't any money in it for it left for the artist after the record companies and online merchants take their cut.
Touring seems to be where the money is at.- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You get the $$$ from touring, merchandise, and appearances/interviews.
- 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.- 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. - warpzone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, because if I like an artist I go out of my way to see them in concert, and sometimes buy a shirt. The money made from those sales is worth 20 of their albums.
- 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?"
- redeyes00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The reason the ala carte method of buying music is here-to-stay is because of the $10 - $15 rehashed best-of the 1980's CD's constantly being pushed. The other reason is the Talent needs to work quality versus quantity into a CD production. The record company pumps 10 songs on to a CD when one or two are worth buying. Makes it a tough sell for all parties.
- jongam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The artists get what they sign a contract for. Making music is pretty much their job, and all the work they do the record companies own. If you do a good job on your report at work you don't get a cut of the profits usually right out if the company profits from it. You might get a raise or a bonus though. It's the same with music artists who sign a contract with a record company. They sign a contract and if the record companies makes enough money from their work, they're likely to get a bonus or more money next contract they sign.
- shmatt, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2making music isn't like working in an office. You can't hire anyone and expect them to be Curt Kobain, it's very rare to find a huge talent, and the labels need the artists more then vice versa.
If you think it's so easy, write me a hit song.
- shmatt, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2making music isn't like working in an office. You can't hire anyone and expect them to be Curt Kobain, it's very rare to find a huge talent, and the labels need the artists more then vice versa.
- 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
- 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.
- 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. - beorhthelm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, the what the artist need to do is set up a website and charge 99cents a track. cut themselves in for say 25%, pay for bandwidth/servers/ops/developers and have a big fat chunk left over to promote the site.
Compete with the labels directly on their own ground.
Only better, because you put the artists merchandise there too, along with touring schudules. Even maybe order a CD copy with artwork. Be the label
But then if it where that simple, shirley someone would already be doing it?
- 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
- 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. - adam.skinner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@shark:
The artists only get the short end because they're in bed with RIAA. They willingly hold on to old-media ways and let RIAA pimp them out. If they worked out a legit deal with reasonable services, it would benefit them in the long run.
Back when CDs were new technology and there was a cost in pressing them and the media, and they were the ONLY GAME IN TOWN, people paid $15 bucks for an album. They're now dispensing with the physical medium and keeping them same, if not more offensive, pricing structures. It costs the bandwith, website maint fees, and customer support. Comparatively, it costs JACK. Which is why sites like allofmp3.com can legitimately have such a pricing model.
If the artists weren't brainwashed into thinking they had to stick with RIAA, they could realistically distribute their music themselves this in day and age. Some do.
Cost is only one reason to go with allofmp3.com, however. The other reason, one even more offensive than high costs, is DRM. Who wants to be bound by DRM? Nobody. If you buy a CD and rip it yourself, you're not bound. In the end, it's probably cheaper to do that than to do ITMS.
- 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"
- slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Who cares? Piracy FTW
- bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Exactly.
***** the RIAA and the artist, gimmie my usenet bitches.
- bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Exactly.
- icdeadpeople, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The article was short but it answered some questions that i have always wondered, Thanks :)
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1They have a contract, they are well aware of what they're getting into. The recording studio does more than a vast majority of the work on an album and thus deserves the highest level of compensation for their time and abilities.
Many people don't bother to take into consideration that the "artist" is only a fraction of the work involved in composing an album, and thus deserves a fraction of the sale as such.
They are a few rare exceptions of people/bands working their tracks to completion all on their own, but these are RARE exceptions with extraordinary talent.- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- Hellfire51, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I would really like to see the net profit gained. I mean, the record label is responsible for the actual manufacturing disks and distribution of mp3's. Nevertheless, they get way to much. I also wish people would realize that 99 cents per song is more expensive than a CD... I think a lot of people overlook that. Anyway, I don't intend on buying any music off on online service unless its lossless (FLAC) and non DRM'd. Why pay more for a lossy DRM'd piece of junk? I think artists really need to go after record labels and set them straight, the labels should be depending on the artists, not the other way around.
- whoatemydigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I dont feel like digging this blip of ***** two sentence explanation by news.com.com
- 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.
- kallgaier, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think artists should all stick it to the record companies, and sell all their stuff on iTunes. I'm sure Steve cares more about the artists than the labels do!
- shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, except the labels own the music, so the artists can't sell it themselves
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2This equation works slightly differently if you consider Allofmp3.com:
for 99 cents:
You get 1 album
Artist gets $0.00 (close to what they get now)
RIAA gets $0.00
Russian Mafia (or whoever) gets $0.99- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It looks possible that some roalities might make it from allofmp3
Eric Wilson
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It looks possible that some roalities might make it from allofmp3
- gfburke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is true in certain cases, but the proceeds for ALL paid downloads are not going to the record industry middlemen.
There is a music distribution service called TuneCore.com in which independent artists can sign up to sell their music on iTunes and other digital stores (napster, emusic etc) and they get every penny of the proceeds that Apple or the digital store provides. Some very successful artists have made several tens of thousands of dollars in a couple months of sales. Many others have made a few hundred bucks a month. The ARTISTS themselves have made that money directly and it's all gone to them. TuneCore charges a small up front fee that works out to around $20-25 an album.
Er, full disclosure, I work for TuneCore. :) - magicRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're also forgetting the sales TAX that you also pay on the download :) Who is actually paying 99c per track in the US? That is where can you get them without paying sales tax? (honest question from a non-US resident)
- shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you can't legally. It's 99 cents, so who cares?
- MetalMere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The artist will make ***** of money either way.
Pirating or not. Cd buyers will still out go pirating.
So I don't see the big issue. - IAmAI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If there's any excuse for not buying music (and downloading illegally) it's the record companies get too much money that they don't deserve,
- Axol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Let artists put their music on the Internet themselves and go round the music industries.
You can probably buy 8 times as much Cd's for the price of one (current situation). - Dlog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So if someone 'torrents' an album illegally, and then PayPal's the artist $4 directly by e-mail, that means the artist is getting signifiantly more income from the "sale" that they would have done from the record companies?
- yves, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That was the most uninformative Digg I've ever read. Pitiful article.
- elchupacabra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This article is horrible. Very short and lacking anything resembling a valid news piece. I can't believe it has so many Diggs. You can post anything showing the Corporate Music Industry in a bad light and people Digg it regardless. Thanks for wasting my time.
- 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.- paulmike3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1seriously... how 'bout a friggin reference or source... anyone could have come up with those numbers... sheesh...
- elchupacabra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're right VesperDEM. This site started out to be very cool but after 7 months of using it I notice that the same topics keep getting recycled over and over again. It's akin to network news channels running re-runs of year old news programs. I guess that's what you get when you let the masses control a site.
- AROERS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ARRRR, ARRRRR
Go indie. Man make the money don't let the man take your money - diktator279, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who gets what when you download a song for free- Recording industry = Zilch. Artist = the satisfaction of their creation being heard without making industry execs rich.
- Dogtown7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1can't established artists become independant and sell directly through itunes and recoup more of that .99?
- gfburke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes they can, dogtown7, through services like TuneCore.
- jviguerie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oversimplified... Inaccurate... and the Source??? C'mon get real. Quoting a glad-handing tech exec proselytizing at a wonky Sili-Valley event... PUH-LEEZE! CNet you suck. No substance, just misleading rant-baiting.
The example used is at the extreme high-end. Most recording rights owners distributing digitally will get .40 -.60 per digital download price. The sale of digital music is not profitable... period. Even Apple acknowledges as much. Digital music is a ubiquitously available commodity which even the #1 market leader struggles to monetize. The economics of major label CD release hinges on the fact that the unit cost of a CD continues to decrease as unit volume increases. With digital music the unit cost remains the same no matter how much volume is achieved.
Ask artists... they'll tell you... like Weird Al did... If you like an artist, and you want to support their career and ability to survive, tour and perform... BUY THE CD.
Music label execs treat digital music revenue as "found money" which may add 5% to overall project receipts. Everyone likes finding money, right? Too bad it's not a business process. Look at the numbers and stop ranting. Labels are investing in distribution over mobile phone networks, where piracy is abated, not over the Internet, where the product is available everywhere "for free" (free-to-steal).
Unless you've ever recorded, produced, released, owned, exploited a music copyright yourself... reserve comment --- you are just a consumer. If you want to own... then buy. If you want to steal, then steal. Live with it. You want to change the music business? Start a record label, band, act and make some records... that's what I did.
NO DIGG! - 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!- bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"As soon as any band can post their music to iTunes, the RIAA and big record companies are over."
There are other avenues besides the RIAA. Probably the most lucrative is Apple's agreement with CDBaby (www.cdbaby.com), which takes only a small portion of the proceeds so most goes to the artist (CDBaby sells direct from the musicians). I'm not sure what the percentage is, but in the case of CDs the musicians get $6-$12 per CD.
Independent labels also provide better deals for bands. I take effort to ensure that any music I buy these days is on non-RIAA labels.
- bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"As soon as any band can post their music to iTunes, the RIAA and big record companies are over."
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If musicians had co-op groups that hired techies to maintain servers, they could keep 90 cents (less whatever marketing they wanted to pay for).
They LET other people take their money. It's that simple. That was necessary in the past - it's completely unnecessary now. - 500freestyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting, but the summary has all the info the article does.
- jiame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am not sure if someone has commented on this. I do remember a story on Digg about the artists only getting money off Itunes songs if it is in their contract with the record company. There could be big artist who are not getting a penny off Itunes because their contract has not expired. That is the time the artist can demand their .045 profit from that 99 cent download. I would be very happy to buy music from the artist rather than Itunes. It would be nice if say a big band like the Dave Mathews band said we do not want your contract. Hopefully they will be allowed to preform their old stuff. Then make a new album and forget all the stuff the record companies wanted them to do and get back to making good music like in the good old days when they were not like every other band.
- covindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Go with the cheapest mp3 d/l as possible 99cents booo mp3.com hmmmmmm is this legal, well ask a musician " no its not " un-less your metallica and you can't igure out how to get you music out there for free while making money in other areas of the business ***** the riaa/mpaa at that matter kinda like team america world police. from the piratebay raids to sueing people without a comp........ die die die and dont take my god damn money you evil suit wearing piece of dog *****.....................
- jsnkc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The artist sign contracts....if they don't like the terms of the contract then they shouldn't sign them and quit bit**ing about it!
If I went in to buy a car and in the contract there was a $10,000 fee for undercoating...do you think I would sign the contract....hell no!!
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by