Artists Make More Money In File-Sharing Age Than Before It

[Roflcopter]

Well, don't look at me that way

[john]

Always worth pointing out some good news Rob It would be interesting to see the distribution diagram of that income across the membership

[Lazz]

Fascinating.

I need to know more.

.

[Roflcopter]

Link to the thesis is in the article - but here you go anyway

[Lazz]

Link to the thesis is in the article - but here you go anyway

Thanks Rob.

Missed the link.

Even more fascinating.

.

[Coises]

Techdirt is an excellent and valuable blog for those interested in the reality of business in the current climate.

They picked up the same story, but it was hardly even news over there.

File sharing is hurting two groups of people: the gatekeepers (major record labels) and the tiny, tiny fraction of artists whose names are household words (and not even all of them). The vast majority of musicians never made doodly-squat from selling physical copies of their recordings: they make their money like everybody else, by working (performing) and giving people something (the experience of seeing you in person) they can’t get any other way.

[thepopeofpop]

What the article shows is that the main part of most artists' income is derived from performing, which of course that isn't adversely affected by file-sharing or iTunes. However, it may well be that file-sharing really is causing a reduction in legitimate sales - both from physical product and from legal download services. When you consider that the cost of a CD has fallen since the introduction of CDs in the 1980s, while the cost of tickets to live performances has gone up dramatically, it isn't surprising that live performance is now so important to an artist's bottom line.

However, if you are an artist who doesn't perform ... then the news isn't so great. Not great news for producers either!

[Roflcopter]

Well, let's recuperate - CD's replaced the old LP's in the eighties - and by 1998 or so, they in turn, went out of fashion with the advent of mp3 etc.

There was never any replacement with a physical component.

Live acts do still have that physical component.

I mean - realisitically - who on EARTH is stilly *buying* CD's these days?

Noone under 30, I guess. There is a real age divide there, in the sense of physical product.

[Roflcopter]

On a side note:

I posted this video a month ago - now the guy got 50-50 split from the creators of the Autotune'd- song/video: enough to buy a house....

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i188fd3103facd85e6cb23f11cb1dd036

[thepopeofpop]

On a side note:

I posted this video a month ago - now the guy got 50-50 split from the creators of the Autotune'd- song/video: enough to buy a house....

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i188fd3103facd85e6cb23f11cb1dd036

I wonder how that actually works. I know the video got 22 million hits on YouTube - but surely an individual hit on YouTube is worth a tiny fraction of a cent.

[Lazz]

I wonder how that actually works. I know the video got 22 million hits on YouTube - but surely an individual hit on YouTube is worth a tiny fraction of a cent.

Yeah - me too.

I think there's a lot we aren't being told about this story.

(How unusual!)

.

[Roflcopter]

I wonder how that actually works. I know the video got 22 million hits on YouTube - but surely an individual hit on YouTube is worth a tiny fraction of a cent.

Well, 11 million times 0.005 dollars is still 55,000 bucks ... it's probably not the right number, and does not include tax etc, but should give to think.

[Lazz]

it's probably not the right number

Shame we can't know what that right number is.

However, we do know that the UK has an on-demand streaming rate of £0.00085 per track - which means one million plays should generate £850 in royalty payments - while the German rate is 130 times greater and in Canada the tariffs are based on service-providers' revenues.

None of which applies to YouTube.

We know that PRS for Music caved-in to a considerably lower deal for YouTube while GEMA stuck to their guns and, as far as I know, still hasn't reached a deal.

We don't know what any YouTube rates are in any detail, but we do know they involve a lump sum significantly less than any pre-existing tarrif.

So - even if we take the UK's regular on-demand streaming rate as illustrative guide, then 22 million translates into only a few cents more than $29,205 US. at today's rate of exchange.

Yet we know that the YouTube deal is reported as a one-off lump payment which is 'considerably' less than this.

Hardly enough, methinks, to buy both a house AND a business degree.

(Can you imagine this dude coping with a degree course?)

Pinch of salt, anyone?

But good luck to him and his family.

.

[Coises]

If you follow the link from the Hollywood Reporter story through to the Us Magazine story, that says nothing about YouTube but does say the song “hit the top 50 iTunes list” and that Dodson got half of the proceeds. So all this speculation about YouTube might be missing the point.

[Lazz]

the song “hit the top 50 iTunes list” ......... speculation about YouTube might be missing the point.

Gotcha.

They pay waaaaay better than YouTube.

.