RSSPerforming artists not seeing money from file sharing settlements
By Tim Conneally | Published February 29, 2008, 11:56 AM
In the last few years, major record labels have issued dozens of lawsuits against sites distributing audio and video files of their property. Artists' representatives are now saying the settlement money isn't going where it belongs.
Of the suits that have been settled, Napster agreed to pay out $270 million, and Kazaa acquiesced to paying $115 million from a case launched in 2004, compensating for past infringements, and converting to a legal download business offering licensed music. Universal Music Group, who went up against Grouper and Myspace for copyright infringement, inked a settlement from online video site Bolt.com.
That company had to sell itself for $30 million to GoFish just to pay off its debt to Universal.
Warner Music, who has been struggling to keep up with declining profits, recently sued music search engine SeeqPod, but a deal has not yet been reached. Such is the state of both Warner Music and the major label at large. Warner Music's CEO lamented on the industry's inability to handle the change to a digital music marketplace.
But in an even worse position than the labels are the artists signed to them. Industry insiders told the New York Post that the record companies are still determining how to distribute the money made from these settlements. After legal expenses, it is entirely possible that there wouldn't be enough money to go around to pay all the artists whose work was shared.
Even if there was, however, talent managers and the artists they represent would have to fight just for a small piece, as the music industry has a reputation of being tight-fisted.
Several years ago, an essay entitled The Problem With Music was penned by musician, record producer and perennial cynic Steve Albini. It gives a detailed account of just how little major label artists made in comparison to other parties involved in the music trade.
Artists' lawyers typically made four times more than an individual band member, and a producer could make as much as twenty times what the artist made for the same product.
This is the industries business model now. Sue for profits and rotate that profit into more lawsuits. Truely no time has been better for artists to DROP the RIAA and go into business for themselves online resulting in at least a 50% profit boost for them even with no DRM and existing filesharing...
This is what happens when you sign with the RIAA and have them start suing your fan base out of existence.
Score: 0
Sue the lawyers =/
Score: 0
Mama always says "stay in school"!
Score: 0
"Artists' lawyers typically made four times more than an individual band member, and a producer could make as much as twenty times what the artist made for the same product."
The biggest reason piracy ever existed, and why it will never be stopped.
Score: 0
I wonder how many of them knew who the real thieves are.
Score: 0
Wow what a shock.
Score: 0
heh, surprise surprise
Score: 0
No surprise here. This was never about protecting the rights of artists, it was about protecting the profit of record companies. The RIAA hiding behind artists to fatten their own wallets.
Score: 0
First of all, I hate DRM just as much as the next guy, part of what I'm going to say is just playing Devil's advocate.
Anyway, my understanding is that the RIAA stated a long time ago that the funds they get from suing everyone goes back into the pot for lawyers, advertising and such in the fight against piracy. In other words, those online and TV adverts about how piracy is wrong and and the web sites on teaching users why.
And anyway, how would you divvy it out? Divide it among all Artists? Determine a percentage of which artists sell more albums and therefore would get a greater percentage? Or look at all of the so-called pirated files, and for each one, give a small percentage. (How much overhead would that be? Then again, isn't it all right there in the court records.)
Overall, I think it's all BS!!! Just open their own store with DRM free music for a small amount and be done with it. They are probably wasting more on lawyer fee's and such that they will raise CD prices or license fees for legit online music stores.
Score: 0
Well, what they made from trials is quite certain. You have to name the tracks being shared (the object of the issue) to start a trial so you know who you have to pay something back.
Score: 0
I buy my songs, never download them, if i like a band I buy the CD. The RIAA and other bodies it appears are just ripping Artists off major!
Score: 0
Sounds like instead of pursuing that venue they should have gotten together made an online store and sold the music like itunes does and made a profit instead of making other people involed rich and getting bupkiss in return.
Score: 0
No surprise here...
Score: 0
There certainly isn't. The RIAA is a front group for record companies, NOT an organization representing the interests of artists.
Score: 0
Sue them! :P
Score: 0