iTunes download service and others only help rip-off musicians

I just posted the article iTunes download service and others only help rip-off musicians.

  WarpedRecord used our news submit to tell  us that iTunes and many other legal download services are not any more 'artist  friendly' than selling CDs or even using free P2P services. ...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6910-iTunes-download-service-and-others-only-help-rip-off-musicians.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6910-iTunes-download-service-and-others-only-help-rip-off-musicians.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

I’d be surprised if anyone thought that music downloads would be more friendly to artists. What reason would you have for believing this? It’s never been claimed, and the large chunk of the cost has always been on the label side. You are not completely removing physical and B&M costs because, although you remove physical product (which did not cost much, anyway), you are now adding software development and maintenance, network bandwidth, hardware costs, etc… I suppose it’s better, then, to keep stealing music so that the artist gets absolutely nothing. That’ll show them record labels. These arguments are so predictable… when you bypass retail and send a check to the artist directly (which I really, really doubt many people would bother to do), you are now ripping off the producers, writers, studios, engineers, cover artists, B&M stores, etc, etc, who normally get paid in the process.
[edited by mbg on 17.10.2003 15:22]

This whole artictle is slightly biased against Apple and it twists things to make it sound like all Apple’s fault. Obviously when Apple developed the whole iTunes system they took their costs, added monthly overhead, made some estimates on sales (although I believe they are selling more music than they planned) and then set the prices. Don’t think for a second that Apple can sell music for free. If you want to get mad about artists being ripped off, blame the record companies. PS: I’m not even much of a fan of Apple either. But if you’re gonna point the finger, make sure you point it at the right people.
[edited by Rhelic on 17.10.2003 15:24]

I tried to base the summary on the source rather than the legal download services in general. I changed the article title so it does not appear to be strictly picking on Apple. The source was trying to say that Apple should have taken a better approach such as to try and sell music from the artists directly rather than going through another middleman, i.e. the music industry
[edited by seanbyrne on 17.10.2003 16:05]

I am a fan of products that allow the artist to distribute their content by themselves even setting the price, I.E. BluFilter which is in beta. Also, there are other vehicles coming along to help the artist get the bigger share such as Magnatune that Savannah told us about. So we can see that the artist can get a better cut of the action if the model is appropriately configured to do so. Time will tell if these are to be profitable businesses for the long term. I don’t know. But it would be nice for the content creators. :slight_smile:

quote: These arguments are so predictable… when you bypass retail and send a check to the artist directly (which I really, really doubt many people would bother to do), you are now ripping off the producers, writers, studios, engineers, cover artists, B&M stores, etc, etc, who normally get paid in the process. mbg: ummm, no, how is this a predictable argument when what you are saying is WRONG? ARTISTS PAY the producers, writers, studios, engineers, etc… NOT the RIAA, so they are NOT getting “ripped off”. And your argument of local stores getting ripped off is invalid, because according to your logic, i am “ripping off” my local stores by buying online for a considerably better price.

No one is getting ripped off here by the iTunes Music Store. It just so happens, that the artists, and everyone else is getting less money than when you buy a CD, but, you, the consumer, are also paying less for it, and are getting quality. All 4 of my iTunes purchases so far have downloaded in about 15 seconds due to Apple’s fast servers, and the quality is excellent. This article was very biased against Apple.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8208 I think if either Apple or Microsoft were violating this copyright, it’d be Apple. They market their downloads as going to an iPod! Talk about a physical medium…

People need to learn more about the recording industry… The record companies front the $250k or so needed to record & promote an album. THAT’s why they get the lion’s share of the returns. For every band that makes a big profit for the company, there are a BUNCH that lose a quarter million bucks a pop. That’s not to say I agree with the RIAA’s legal maneuvers or anything, but the artists on iTunes are still bound by those contracts and that kind of capital investment to pay back. I hope we’ll soon see a world where bands record more intelligently, with less overhead to pay back. Some already do, but not the big names. As long as buyers look for the big names, this is the way it’ll be. Why are the names big? Money & marketing. If you want artists to get the $$, then find small artists who recorded an album for $10k by themselves in their basement studio, and download from their web site. For every megastar making a million bucks a year, I’d rather see 20 making $50,000 and enjoying it.

It’s just the start. Let the competition begin. Just yesterday I heard on npr.org that 80% of .99 goes to the record companies and 20% is split between apple and the artist (reported by the NewYorkTimes’s columnist David Pogue). Now don’t you feel bad for the record companies? I wonder what their tithe is to RIAA? http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1467973

I think that most people here are forgetting one thing. Better than 70% of artists dont own the copyrights to their music. The record companies took it when they signed the contract. While some were smart enough to make sure they got it back after so many years some did not and will face legal battles 30 years from now when they want to get that back…