RIAA sues
- Thread starter dito
- Start date
BMZ
New member
not to sound like a dick and side with the RIAA or nothing cause they are some bastards, but I work in the music industry, and personally it does hurt your sales alot by file sharing....keeps people from buying CDs.......sales are tanking because of all the file sharing and bootlegging of music that's going on.......and the artists are the ones who suffer.
record label's recording contracts are already fucking over the artists enough so we need every penny we can get.....
record label's recording contracts are already fucking over the artists enough so we need every penny we can get.....
Matthew D
Well-known member
The main problem that has been happening with the damn record sales is that some of the major artists have been putting out **** albums for with only one or two good songs on it.. I understand that everyone wants to get paid.. I would also.. but the record industry is going to have to change the way they do business.. plain and simple. I have purchased a few songs I have liked from sites like fleetwoodmac.com and not gotten the whole album yet.. if anything I have wanted to get more albums because of my downloads. And bootlegged albums have been around forever.. didn't the Dead make a living off letting their fans bootleg albums?
BMZ
New member
yeah I agree with you bro......alot of artists are putting out **** albums and that's how they get screwed, the artists sign recording contracts legally binding them to 5-7 albums and as soon as sales drop, they label drops them from the contracts....so the label's frame of mind is to "get in and get out quick"......
out of those 5 or so albums probably only 2 or 3 really sell good and the others hurt the artist's payment, so yes you can make money bootlegging your own ****, I know the groups I work with, we have done that.
out of those 5 or so albums probably only 2 or 3 really sell good and the others hurt the artist's payment, so yes you can make money bootlegging your own ****, I know the groups I work with, we have done that.
jminis
Well-known member
I file share. **** bro I turn on MTV and see everybody with there million dollar homes, 6 cars, and diamonds out the ass. I don't feel so bad in my little three bedroom house. I see the top artists going multi platinum. They're selling records with no prob. And the record companies, what does the top dogs in the company drive, I'm guessin they ain't drivin no honda. They wanna keep chargin 20 a cd so they can live there fat cat life, don't think so. You are not gettin my money. I download but if there's an album that actually has more then 2 good tracks I have no problem buying. I respect that artist because it shows he put time into the album not just two commercial hits and the rest of the tracks are just space fillers. So they can sit on there 100ft yachts and I'll sit in my 9ft canoe and they can keep bitchin about how they can only buy 10 bottles of cristal instead of 15, but I'll be damn if they get more of my money. This is my opinion anyway. 
Machina
New member
I don't download files to use them as music, I use them as a preview.
Generally the quality of files found on the internet is random and rarely decent. But it's good enough to tell me if I want the album.
So the days when a Studio can over-hype an album with one decent song and generate massive sales are over... boo fucking hoo. So they get the results that they deserve and can't use hype to **** over the listeners, I'm not going to mourn that.
The kind of people that use downloaded MP3's to replace buying a CD are the same people that would listen to radio-dubbed tape as a replacement.
Strangely enough the years 2000-2002 marked a period of time where studio releases were 10% less than in 1999. Predictibly they sold less music, but instead of admitting it was a failed ploy to up the consumption of specific "special effect" artists that were owned by the studios, they blame filesharing.
I don't have respect for unconstitutional laws that were bought by international corporations(DMCA). I have less respect for these corporations turning OUR civil justice system into their own personal vendetta system. When asked how they could get probably cause for searching through the systems to get evidence enough to support a subpoena, the RIAA president responded "We're not the law, we don't need probable cause".
Many people don't understand that the burden of proof for civil cases isn't "guilt" it's merely "preponderance of evidence" which basically means putting out reams and reams of maybes = guilt.
There's a reason they're only pursuing civil cases... they CAN'T get proof enough for criminal charges... but they have the attorney power to beat a middle-class kid to death with civil penalties and court costs.
At the same time these studios are forcing people to accept their version of copyright ethics, they quietly settle a suit that they engaged in illegal price fixing on CD's. So you see, it's not really about ethics, it's about who's got the lawyers and cash to push their adgenda harder.
(charging a college student with a quarter BILLION dollars of penalties... jesus)
BTW can you tell this is a pet peeve of mine?
Generally the quality of files found on the internet is random and rarely decent. But it's good enough to tell me if I want the album.
So the days when a Studio can over-hype an album with one decent song and generate massive sales are over... boo fucking hoo. So they get the results that they deserve and can't use hype to **** over the listeners, I'm not going to mourn that.
The kind of people that use downloaded MP3's to replace buying a CD are the same people that would listen to radio-dubbed tape as a replacement.
Strangely enough the years 2000-2002 marked a period of time where studio releases were 10% less than in 1999. Predictibly they sold less music, but instead of admitting it was a failed ploy to up the consumption of specific "special effect" artists that were owned by the studios, they blame filesharing.
I don't have respect for unconstitutional laws that were bought by international corporations(DMCA). I have less respect for these corporations turning OUR civil justice system into their own personal vendetta system. When asked how they could get probably cause for searching through the systems to get evidence enough to support a subpoena, the RIAA president responded "We're not the law, we don't need probable cause".
Many people don't understand that the burden of proof for civil cases isn't "guilt" it's merely "preponderance of evidence" which basically means putting out reams and reams of maybes = guilt.
There's a reason they're only pursuing civil cases... they CAN'T get proof enough for criminal charges... but they have the attorney power to beat a middle-class kid to death with civil penalties and court costs.
At the same time these studios are forcing people to accept their version of copyright ethics, they quietly settle a suit that they engaged in illegal price fixing on CD's. So you see, it's not really about ethics, it's about who's got the lawyers and cash to push their adgenda harder.
(charging a college student with a quarter BILLION dollars of penalties... jesus)
BTW can you tell this is a pet peeve of mine?
Iron Warrior
Registered User
Jesus, we're having our right to share music taken away. I have a fuckin problem with that because the music being shared belongs to us the people who are sharing it, not the artist. I think the music industry needs a fuckin reality check, cause they can't get away with high way robbery for too long. And none of the main artists are on welfare and starving to death either so I don't mind having downloaded the 3,000 + songs into my computer. I hope sharing music doesn't get people in jail because some people have egos the size of Texas.
That's almost as bad as being forced to buy our **** at GNC because they manipulated the legal system.
That's almost as bad as being forced to buy our **** at GNC because they manipulated the legal system.
lifted
Well-known member
Machina said:
Its the same thing. You DL music from others on the net, plus your not even buying it then, people just give it away. The used scenario is worse, your buying them.
Actually wtf?? People aren't buying it so whats the big deal? How is that illegal? All I can see wrong is that if you bootleg a CD then you resell it. Or you make a copy and resell it. Everything else doesn't make sense.
Its like selling books at a flea-market, or anything else thats copywrited. I'm clueless.......
BMZ
New member
well I agree with you guys on these points.....I am in NO way siding with the RIAA or record labels or anything, but let me respond being an artist myself and working in the music industry, I would like to reply at an artist's point of view.......
Matthew:
Hey right now I think that would be the best plan for any artist.. I mean hell why pay some at the label that is not really backing your album.
-- Yes it does work great because most recording contracts don't favor the artists, the label's frame of mind is that they are taking the financial risk so the artists are lucky if they get 10-15% of record/CD sales which works out to about .10cents per CD/tape, etc....and that is AFTER the label has recouped all the money they spent on the production, advertising, marketing, promotional items like videos, sampler CDs, etc, printing up of CDs, and any advance money they gave to the artists, yes all of that money comes out of the artist's percentage of sales..............
JMINIS: I file share. **** bro I turn on MTV and see everybody with there million dollar homes, 6 cars, and diamonds out the ass. I don't feel so bad in my little three bedroom house. I see the top artists going multi platinum. They're selling records with no prob. ---
------reality check, most of the stuff you see on all of these videos, or TV shows, are BS....most of those things are rented just for the videos and the artist doesn't really own these things, like the cars, jewelry, women etc all of those are usually rented, truth is, a very low percentage of artists are rich....I know guys that have sold 1 million albums and are to this day, broke and living a normal life just like you and me, true enough the record label owners are the ones that make the money, not the artists. Recording contracts are shady and not to mention all the so-called "going platinum", those numbers can be manipulated where it appears that the artist sold 1 million records, but in reality, the actual number could be more or less depending on who is promoting your album.
a good promotions/marketing person can make it look like a CD sold 1-2 million CDs when actually it probably only sold 500-800,000.---------
"I download but if there's an album that actually has more then 2 good tracks I have no problem buying. I respect that artist because it shows he put time into the album not just two commercial hits and the rest of the tracks are just space fillers. "----I agree with you totally on this bro...if the artists took time out to make good albums then record sales would be no problem...the music industry is about 10% talent and 90% business, it's not about the music anymore, it's about money.
---I agree with MACHINA on his points totally, it is bullshit and about money, they are just trying to make examples of people by using lawyers and pushing their weight around with money, but I agree with you on using downloaded music as a preview to see if it's good enough to buy, but what you have to understand, Machina, bro, is that most of the shared files or downloaded music on the internet is stolen from the artist or someone at the studio or somebody who has the inside hook-up on getting the latest music, and this is copyrighted material, it's the same as you writing a book and somebody stealing it off your computer or your office and selling it. it's like you are doing all the work and somebody else is getting paid for it........how would you like going to work 9-5 everyday and then every pay-day somebody comes and steals your pay-check? this is the same thing, no difference.
IRON WARRIOR: Jesus, we're having our right to share music taken away. I have a fuckin problem with that because the music being shared belongs to us the people who are sharing it, not the artist. I think the music industry needs a fuckin reality check, cause they can't get away with high way robbery for too long. And none of the main artists are on welfare and starving to death either so I don't mind having downloaded the 3,000 + songs into my computer. I hope sharing music doesn't get people in jail because some people have egos the size of Texas.
That's almost as bad as being forced to buy our **** at GNC because they manipulated the legal system.--
---bro you are partially right...the music is copyrighted, so legally it DOES belong to the artist or record label, not the person sharing it.....just because it's in your possession does not mean it legally belongs to you, that's like stealing somebody's car and then saying it belongs to you just because you have it in your house.....make sense now?
but trust me bro, I'm not defending the record labels at all, because they are all shady and DO **** you over, all I'm saying is that shared/downloaded music does not legally belong to you......
JERGO: "Its the same thing. You DL music from others on the net, plus your not even buying it then, people just give it away. The used scenario is worse, your buying them.
Actually wtf?? People aren't buying it so whats the big deal? How is that illegal? All I can see wrong is that if you bootleg a CD then you resell it. Or you make a copy and resell it. Everything else doesn't make sense.
Its like selling books at a flea-market, or anything else thats copywrited. I'm clueless.......
---buying USED CDs is NOT the same thing...once again, this material is COPYRIGHTED, which mean it's is legally the property of the person or company which owns the copyright, which makes it illegal to share, sell or even broadcast (radio, tv) without their permission. Downloading it on the net is illegal because 90% of the time it's stolen material, the only legal way to posess it is to purchase it, and I don't mean bootlegged stuff either, I mean from a legitimate retailer. making a copy and selling it is bootlegging, which is stealing. if you go out and steal somebody's car, then sell it to somebody else......what is that? STEALING......maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges here but it's the same principle, this material is copyrighted. And buying it USED is OK because most of the USED CD retailers are also legitimate retailers and sell NEW and USED CDs store which means that they also can order old and new album and these kinds of stores get credit for albums that they sell and the sales can be tracked by the record labels, unless they are a store that sells only bootlegged CDs/albums.
I agree with all you bros on the point that these big record labels are only doing this to make an example out of people and it is wrong that they are attacking the little people who cannot defend themselves, but that is what they do....record labels **** you over......
and I also urge you to look at the point of view of the artist who make this music, when you download/burn songs off the internet or purchase bootlegged CDs instead of purchasing it from a legitimate music retailer, you are hurting record sales which in turn hurts the artist. so if you have any love or respect for the artists you like, please go out and purchase a REAL CD. if you think they are too high then just don't purchase it, just go steal it...that's the same thing.
Matthew:
Hey right now I think that would be the best plan for any artist.. I mean hell why pay some at the label that is not really backing your album.
-- Yes it does work great because most recording contracts don't favor the artists, the label's frame of mind is that they are taking the financial risk so the artists are lucky if they get 10-15% of record/CD sales which works out to about .10cents per CD/tape, etc....and that is AFTER the label has recouped all the money they spent on the production, advertising, marketing, promotional items like videos, sampler CDs, etc, printing up of CDs, and any advance money they gave to the artists, yes all of that money comes out of the artist's percentage of sales..............
JMINIS: I file share. **** bro I turn on MTV and see everybody with there million dollar homes, 6 cars, and diamonds out the ass. I don't feel so bad in my little three bedroom house. I see the top artists going multi platinum. They're selling records with no prob. ---
------reality check, most of the stuff you see on all of these videos, or TV shows, are BS....most of those things are rented just for the videos and the artist doesn't really own these things, like the cars, jewelry, women etc all of those are usually rented, truth is, a very low percentage of artists are rich....I know guys that have sold 1 million albums and are to this day, broke and living a normal life just like you and me, true enough the record label owners are the ones that make the money, not the artists. Recording contracts are shady and not to mention all the so-called "going platinum", those numbers can be manipulated where it appears that the artist sold 1 million records, but in reality, the actual number could be more or less depending on who is promoting your album.
a good promotions/marketing person can make it look like a CD sold 1-2 million CDs when actually it probably only sold 500-800,000.---------
"I download but if there's an album that actually has more then 2 good tracks I have no problem buying. I respect that artist because it shows he put time into the album not just two commercial hits and the rest of the tracks are just space fillers. "----I agree with you totally on this bro...if the artists took time out to make good albums then record sales would be no problem...the music industry is about 10% talent and 90% business, it's not about the music anymore, it's about money.
---I agree with MACHINA on his points totally, it is bullshit and about money, they are just trying to make examples of people by using lawyers and pushing their weight around with money, but I agree with you on using downloaded music as a preview to see if it's good enough to buy, but what you have to understand, Machina, bro, is that most of the shared files or downloaded music on the internet is stolen from the artist or someone at the studio or somebody who has the inside hook-up on getting the latest music, and this is copyrighted material, it's the same as you writing a book and somebody stealing it off your computer or your office and selling it. it's like you are doing all the work and somebody else is getting paid for it........how would you like going to work 9-5 everyday and then every pay-day somebody comes and steals your pay-check? this is the same thing, no difference.
IRON WARRIOR: Jesus, we're having our right to share music taken away. I have a fuckin problem with that because the music being shared belongs to us the people who are sharing it, not the artist. I think the music industry needs a fuckin reality check, cause they can't get away with high way robbery for too long. And none of the main artists are on welfare and starving to death either so I don't mind having downloaded the 3,000 + songs into my computer. I hope sharing music doesn't get people in jail because some people have egos the size of Texas.
That's almost as bad as being forced to buy our **** at GNC because they manipulated the legal system.--
---bro you are partially right...the music is copyrighted, so legally it DOES belong to the artist or record label, not the person sharing it.....just because it's in your possession does not mean it legally belongs to you, that's like stealing somebody's car and then saying it belongs to you just because you have it in your house.....make sense now?
but trust me bro, I'm not defending the record labels at all, because they are all shady and DO **** you over, all I'm saying is that shared/downloaded music does not legally belong to you......
JERGO: "Its the same thing. You DL music from others on the net, plus your not even buying it then, people just give it away. The used scenario is worse, your buying them.
Actually wtf?? People aren't buying it so whats the big deal? How is that illegal? All I can see wrong is that if you bootleg a CD then you resell it. Or you make a copy and resell it. Everything else doesn't make sense.
Its like selling books at a flea-market, or anything else thats copywrited. I'm clueless.......
---buying USED CDs is NOT the same thing...once again, this material is COPYRIGHTED, which mean it's is legally the property of the person or company which owns the copyright, which makes it illegal to share, sell or even broadcast (radio, tv) without their permission. Downloading it on the net is illegal because 90% of the time it's stolen material, the only legal way to posess it is to purchase it, and I don't mean bootlegged stuff either, I mean from a legitimate retailer. making a copy and selling it is bootlegging, which is stealing. if you go out and steal somebody's car, then sell it to somebody else......what is that? STEALING......maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges here but it's the same principle, this material is copyrighted. And buying it USED is OK because most of the USED CD retailers are also legitimate retailers and sell NEW and USED CDs store which means that they also can order old and new album and these kinds of stores get credit for albums that they sell and the sales can be tracked by the record labels, unless they are a store that sells only bootlegged CDs/albums.
I agree with all you bros on the point that these big record labels are only doing this to make an example out of people and it is wrong that they are attacking the little people who cannot defend themselves, but that is what they do....record labels **** you over......
and I also urge you to look at the point of view of the artist who make this music, when you download/burn songs off the internet or purchase bootlegged CDs instead of purchasing it from a legitimate music retailer, you are hurting record sales which in turn hurts the artist. so if you have any love or respect for the artists you like, please go out and purchase a REAL CD. if you think they are too high then just don't purchase it, just go steal it...that's the same thing.
destro19
Member
It wont matter what the RI(GAY) chooses to do cause some fat bastard hacker will just come up with some new undetectable program. It’s there own fault. If the consumer knows you can buy a blank cd for less than $0.50, then they wont buy a cd for $17.99 just cause it has some pictures and bullshit in it. And the fact that there are only 2-4 good songs on an 18 cut album. Artist put out 2-4 albums per year instead of one good one. Stress creates Evolution. The consumers were stressed with the bullshit, so the music industry now must evolve.
BMZ
New member
another thing I wanna stress is that most labels only focus on the latest trend or what is currently selling records just to make quick money. one example is the bling, bling ****, all this talk about Cristal, and diamonds and who has the biggest house or nicest car, etc all that **** is BS, they are just doing that to sell records, most of the time the artist doesn't have all that ****....so by all means if you think something is BS then don't buy it......
but if it's good music and worth buying, then buy it.
don't bootleg it or just burn it on a CD. making GOOD albums take time, and money and a good artist will pour his heart and soul into it...those are the ones I am referring to.
not DJ Bullshit and MC Booty-Shaker
but if it's good music and worth buying, then buy it.
don't bootleg it or just burn it on a CD. making GOOD albums take time, and money and a good artist will pour his heart and soul into it...those are the ones I am referring to.
not DJ Bullshit and MC Booty-Shaker
Machina
New member
I believe artists should be supported by their fans, the industry thinks that they should be able to collect money from people's curiosity about an artist(curiosity created by careful media manipulation).
Anyway, here's the latest dirty criminal brought to justice by the good people in the music industry.
12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading
Invalid Link Removed
Anyway, here's the latest dirty criminal brought to justice by the good people in the music industry.
12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading
Invalid Link Removed
BMZ
New member
true bro.....the only way we are gonna make a change is to change the way these labels give out recording contracts, cause these labels are crooks.
and bro, just because you pay a service fee to download it does not make it legal to do.
most of the tracks on the internet are stolen.
and once again I wanna stress that I'm NOT DEFENDING THE RIAA........OR RECORD LABELS.....
I'm defending the ARTISTS who are the ones getting screwed here.
and bro, just because you pay a service fee to download it does not make it legal to do.
most of the tracks on the internet are stolen.
and once again I wanna stress that I'm NOT DEFENDING THE RIAA........OR RECORD LABELS.....
I'm defending the ARTISTS who are the ones getting screwed here.
Machina
New member
In the beginning(ominous eh?) the labels earned their place by being the gateway to record production, retail distribution, and media advertising.
NOW, production facilities are available to many, and are available on an individual basis.
Major Chain retail distribution is still in the hands of the labels... because their parent companies own the stores and will not do buisiness with independents.
Media advertising is ... evolving, great local bands still have a tendency to stay local without the backing of a label. (Even most independent music news agencies still only cover label backed artists, simply because its easier, more glamourous, and guarantees future access to other label backed artists.) The internet is being used by many non-contract bands to spread word and give out samples(and some even have online sales). But attention is still a problem.
What needs to happen is to have a centralized, non-industry forum/website/download center that freely allows bands to get some large scale attention. The label, and the huge cuts they take, are bad enough. But in the past decade they've shown a preference for not only telling us who to listen to, they actually CREATE the band in the first place(saves them the money for buying the rights to the music, and lets them take an even bigger percentage of the profits).
NOW, production facilities are available to many, and are available on an individual basis.
Major Chain retail distribution is still in the hands of the labels... because their parent companies own the stores and will not do buisiness with independents.
Media advertising is ... evolving, great local bands still have a tendency to stay local without the backing of a label. (Even most independent music news agencies still only cover label backed artists, simply because its easier, more glamourous, and guarantees future access to other label backed artists.) The internet is being used by many non-contract bands to spread word and give out samples(and some even have online sales). But attention is still a problem.
What needs to happen is to have a centralized, non-industry forum/website/download center that freely allows bands to get some large scale attention. The label, and the huge cuts they take, are bad enough. But in the past decade they've shown a preference for not only telling us who to listen to, they actually CREATE the band in the first place(saves them the money for buying the rights to the music, and lets them take an even bigger percentage of the profits).
jminis
Well-known member
BMZ I agree with you that if the album is good then you should buy it. But when you say they just use all that bling bling to sell records, and the artist don't really have it. Hmm are you sure. It seems to me like they have that plus much more. Have you ever seen MTV cribs. They all have about 8 cars. Bentley's, Lambo's, and ridiculous houses. Until I see these artists drivin in some Fords or Honda's then maybe I'll stop downloading. I feel the labels have done this to themselves. If they were rippin people off for years then this wouldn't be a problem right now. Payback's a bitch. What goes around comes around.
BMZ
New member
jminis said:
true...well I'm not saying ALL of the artists don't have all that money they claim to have, just most of them, but the ones you see on MTV Cribs do, but those are people who have sold millions and millions of records and have usually been in the game for a long time..........now they DO have it, but most of the time the ones that make the big money are independent labels. you can make more money by being an independent than you can being signed to a major label.
being signed to a label you make about 10-15cents off each CD, being independent you can make $5-7 per CD.
BMZ
New member
I would urge anybody who is thinking of making music and selling CDs to try to stay independent.......like MACHINA said above there are many ways to produce and manufacture, and sell albums without the backing of a major label and make great money..........
they even have the advanced technology of recording music on a computer in your own home and it sounds great.
they even have the advanced technology of recording music on a computer in your own home and it sounds great.
Machina
New member
Sorry just had to chime in on the whole "cribs" and the glamourous life of stars.
Keep in mind that like BMZ said, only the long time, multi-platinum selling stars have that kind of REAL money.
The others.... it's called renting, and it's why those stars end up with nothing once they stop selling albums.
Keep in mind that like BMZ said, only the long time, multi-platinum selling stars have that kind of REAL money.
The others.... it's called renting, and it's why those stars end up with nothing once they stop selling albums.
jminis
Well-known member
MC Hammer anybody, hehe. I agree with you guys. But I refer to those people are cribs because there the ones in the public eye most of the time. When the drumme for metallica got all in this **** complaining I was pissed, I mean understand if it's a small group who's trying to make it but this dude has millions. He makes more off of one show than I'll make in a year.
BMZ I hear ya on the independent label being better for the artist but artist make most of there money by touring and putting on shows. That's where they make the big bucks.
BMZ I hear ya on the independent label being better for the artist but artist make most of there money by touring and putting on shows. That's where they make the big bucks.
BMZ
New member
jminis said:
true that.......BOTH independent and major label artists both make their money off of touring and shows, appearances, etc....they don't make it off the labels by selling CDs unless they CONSISTENTLY sell millions of records every time they release something.......
you can sign a multi-album deal for like 5 albums and probably won't start getting any royalties from the label until about album #4, and that's IF you sell like 2-3 million every time.......
and on another subject, not to mention all the bullshit politics and kiss-ass you have to do to get your **** played on the radio........
BMZ
New member
no I work for an independent record label, I do mainly promotions, marketing and management, but I am also an artist myself..so be looking out for "BMZ" stuff in the future, anyway, ........I work with several groups out of Dallas, one of the guys I work with was in an old rap group that you might have heard from back in the day called NEMESIS....they did alot of Bass music like 2 Live Crew and all of that....remember that song "Munchies for Your Bass" from the early 90s? yeah I know those guys....
I got all my knowlege from working with them cause they used to be on PROFILE records, which is used to be a MAJOR label, it was the same one that Run-DMC was on back in the day and ICE CUBE, too. anyway we are now independent and we are pushing some new stuff which is getting alot of airplay now across the country as an independent..
check out one of the websites we have...
Invalid Link Removed
I got all my knowlege from working with them cause they used to be on PROFILE records, which is used to be a MAJOR label, it was the same one that Run-DMC was on back in the day and ICE CUBE, too. anyway we are now independent and we are pushing some new stuff which is getting alot of airplay now across the country as an independent..
check out one of the websites we have...
Invalid Link Removed
sawastea
Member
BMZ said:
The last breakdown I saw, the artists get about $1.65 a CD
You go platinum and you bank 1.65mm
Okay, now you get taxed 39%. However within that 1.6m you'll get many tax breaks
All in all, not too shaby a year if you make over 1mm (thats not even including concert sales with are LUDACRIS
BMZ
New member
sawastea said:
where did you get this info from...?
it sounds high bro, the average contract is about 10-15% of the CD sales, and that's AFTER they take out the advance money they gave you and take out all the money they spent on you for promotion, marketing, management, production, videos, they even charge you for the toilet paper they bought for you to wipe your ass with,
most artists go platinum (1 million units sold) and still end up broke. it's the truth. I don't care how much the contract is SUPPOSED to pay you, the record labels always seem to end of fucking you in the contracts....
so basically if they advance you $100,000 and you sell a million records then technically you already got paid in advance so you don't get no more money......
**** I've seen contracts where the artist got a big ass advance but still ended up owing money to the label in their contract because they didn't sell enough records..........
BMZ
New member
another thing you gotta remember bro is that most contracts are for 5 to 7 album deals.....so you might sell 1 million the first album but if the 2nd and 3rd album don't go platinum then it hurts your payment......
nobody in the business get 1 million per CD released unless they are consistently selling 2 or 3 million CDs per release....
NOBODY...!!! only people that sell a shitload of CDs like Eminem, Evanescence, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, CREED, etc, people that sell shitloads of records every time are the ones that make any money.
you actually can make more money being an independent.
nobody in the business get 1 million per CD released unless they are consistently selling 2 or 3 million CDs per release....
NOBODY...!!! only people that sell a shitload of CDs like Eminem, Evanescence, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, CREED, etc, people that sell shitloads of records every time are the ones that make any money.
you actually can make more money being an independent.
BMZ
New member
dito said:
yes they are bro, I've seen it over and over again.
they are especially good at taking advantage of poor people or people who are uneducated about the business,
you take a poor white kid from the suburbs or a poor black kid who has grown up in the ghetto all his life and put $100,000 in his face, ****, he will sign anything.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
That's what pissed me off. They try to make it about people ripping off the artist but they don't make **** on the record sales. The artist make money touring and on merchandise if they are lucky. The music scene sucks now. Everything it's so processed. It's like taking a cookie cutter to music. It's all the same from the pop punk sum 182 type, to the dirtygirl pop princes, to the boy band. Change a britney and Christina song it basically the same, same thing with out of sync and the backdoor boys, same thing with the sum -21 and blink 486. I miss the old school metallica and remember a time when a band didn't need mtv or radio to make it. F THE RECORD COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!! and F MTV too
Iron Warrior
Registered User
Same here bro, no fuckin artists will get my $$ unless it's Metallica. Now if only Matallica can come up w/a good album like the Black album, that would be a breath of fresh airVanillaGorilla said:
As far as them suing 12 year old kids, that's heartless. That bothers me more than anything else.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
like the 12 year old is going to be able to pay them even if they won.lol
The other thing is they paid to join kazaa..............wouldn't kazaa be the one they should be going after? I know Kazaa won a case in CA a few months ago.
The other thing is they paid to join kazaa..............wouldn't kazaa be the one they should be going after? I know Kazaa won a case in CA a few months ago.