Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But for all that, the basic premise that the artist signs to a label, pays all the costs out of their small fraction, and then owns nothing at the end, is one of the things that will cause labels to flounder.
you underplay the role of investment capital in that equation simon.
labels front for the quite sizable cost of putting the whole dance on.At the end of the day the artist may get between fuck all and squat, but you must compare that with what the artist would get at the end of the day if they did it all themselves, quite possibly a bank loan they can't pay off ie even less. majors are evil, understood, accurate perspective is important too though.
-
in getting it from label to consumer after it has been manufactured
-
local indie distributors figures. different retail full price of $29.95
wholesale $14.40 inc gst (artist label cut $12.82 ex gst)
distro $19.23 inc gst (distro cut $4.28 ex gst)
retail $29.95 inc gst (retail cut $9.52 ex gst)I think I got that right, not sure on the last one.
means more than half of the cost of a disc is in getting it from label to consumer.
ie $12.82 -artist/label/manufacturing
$13.80 - distro/retail.please check and correct, my heads a little sore this morning.
-
refresher current break down of retail cd prices
$22.44 (19.94 plus gst) wholesale = $34.95 retail. retail cut = $12.51 a disc.anyone got comparable figures for 12 tracks itunes downloads.
-
I actually don't think it's an unreasonable margin.
that would depend upon what the actual costs of bringing said product from artist/label to paying customer.
30% of the total income is similar to what a shop takes and for that they provide sales staff (be they disinterested snotty teenagers, or informed passionate and knowledgeable), high street shops (or dingy back alley basements) paying rent, advertising, physical displays.
They store and manage and handle physical stock.If myspace can afford to manage and store the swag of material it does at no cost to the streaming consumer that would mean that the remaining value and expense is in the financial transaction and the accounts management. is that a 30% cost.
Also that 30% makes it really hard for artists to bring their wares to customers at what would be an attractive rate. say 50 cents a song.
-
implies that there is no creative aspect to technical pursuits
actually the tech head comment was made with regard to a couple of specific comments in this thread coming directly from the tech side only. that attitude may well not be representative of the tech industry, or the creatives in said industry.
-
The real problem for creators on iTunes and other download services is the miserable royalty rate paid on those sales by the major labels. I think that will change as independents and aggregators start eating the majors' lunch.
the providers of the service are now taking the large cut of the lunch. itunes takes some where in the region of half. pretty hard to offer your product at a lower price if someone else is taking a huge cut.
That was the same with cd retail taking a 75% mark up but the high cost of cds was always focused on the greedy label. a large part of the cost of media is the last person to touch it charging so much to give you the media and take your money. -
implies that there is no creative aspect to technical pursuits
hell no, that is rediculous, but that's software not media. I was trying to restrict my comments to something that doesn't do something other than entertain, although computer games must fall into the entertainment category.
what's the game industries position on seeing their work spread without recompense?
-
as if it's some kind of insult,
absolutely no insult intended,
jealousy if anything, society holds technical thought in high regard. their the guys that make stuff work.
but yes, you said it better.But that's been the story of the last few decades of copyright law. Virtually all the movement -- term extensions, force of law, etc -- has gone in favour of copyright owners
so if forward movement is term extensions, more support and rights to creative content owners then a move to remove that must be a backwards, a return to conditions of old, that's the conservative position. We tried it your way and we didn't like so we're going back to a position we had before". less rights for media.
I have trouble with seeing some of the thrust of copyright reform as a move forward. We've already been in that state of mind before, many years ago.
-
that proponents for change need to deal with.
I am a proponent for change, but mine is a change from the creators point of view, and its not conservative, I'd like to see protections and rights liberally extended, in favor of the creator.
that's not a very popular view point with the predominantly tech head occupants of this site who care to comment.I think islander is the only one that I know of in a position of owning valuable copyright works who will be affected seriously by free media change. PA is pretty underrepresented by people in that position expressing their view of what they would like to happen,
Jon, have you focused your view any more? you're throwing a lot of material around,