AllofMP3 er historie

[tom waits for alice]

Bare en ørliten faktaopplysning:

 

TONO er ikke det samme som ROMS som allofmp3 hadde avtale med, eller FAIR som den nye utgaven har det med.

 

Forskjellen er at TONO eies og drives av rettighetshaverne selv, altså komponister og tekstforfattere og forleggerne. (Skjønt noen har valgt å melde seg ut i misnøye med TONOs fordelingspolitikk.)

 

ROMS derimot er et frittstående organ som i sin tid hadde en avtale med den russiske rettighetshaverorganisasjonen RAO. Men den avtalen ble sagt opp for lenge siden. ROMS utnytttet det faktum at man etter daværende (og muligens nåværende) russisk lov faktisk kan kreve inn royalties på andre vegne uten deres aktive samtykke. Det krevdes aktiv protest fra rettighetshaver før de ikke kunne/kan gjøre det. Og det var/er rettighetshaverens ansvar å be om å få sin del av kaken. Litt bakvent kanskje, men det levde de fett på.

 

Og de hadde ingen rettigheter til internasjonal musikk, men tok royalties for dette allikevel uten å sende den videre. For dette ble de sparket ut av den internasjonale organisasjonen for rettighetshavere, CISAC = International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.

 

Hvordan det stiller seg med FAIR vet jeg ennå ikke, men har merket meg at betalingsformidlerne er mer vennlig stilt til dem så kanskje det er litt bedre.

 

BTW: Vet ikke om det er tilfeldig, men akkurat nå kommer jeg ikke inn på mp3sparks heller...

 

Edit: Glemte kilden til at avtalen er opphørt: The Register: Russian 5c MP3 site 'unlicensed'

 

As for the authors/publishers' rights, matters are more complex. Whilst the current law makes it clear that there is a need for licences to cover the use of musical works on the Internet in Russia, a fallout between the Russian Authors' Organisation (RAO) and the Russian Organisation for Multimedia and Digital Systems (ROMS), which had been licensing Russian digital music services on its behalf, means that Allofmp3 is no longer licensed despite its claims to the contrary.

 

RAO terminated its agreement with ROMS at the end of 2003, complaining that it had received very little money and no accounting details from the four-year-old body which RAO had itself helped to found. "They told us they had 200 licences but they would not even tell us who they were licensing," RAO's Vadim Dunin told MusicAlly.

 

Geir

Endret 4. juli 2007 av tom waits for alice

[squabbish]

Før byttelånte jeg lassevis av CD'er med venner, nå laster jeg ned. Tror verken bransjen eller artistene merker det økonomisk at jeg har begynnt å "stjele". Kjøper fortsatt samme antall CD'er i løpet av et år.

[NikkaYoichi]

Jeg lurer virkelig på hvorfor pornoindustrien ikke skriker over nedlasting. Jeg kan ikke se for meg annet enn at folk laster ned porno fremfor å betale for den. Eller for å vri litt på det, jeg tror folk flest har flere nedlastede pornofilmer per kjøpte pornofilm enn nedlastet CD per kjøpte CD eller DVD. Jeg har ikke hørt at pornobransjen lider noen nød enda, men det er kanskje bare jeg som er treig.

 

Som posteren over også påpekte, så bedrev folk piratkopiering og tyveri før også. Helt fra å spille inn gramofonplater til kassett, CD-plater til kassett, CD/gramofon til kassett, CD-/gramofonplater til hard disk og nå internett til kassett, MP3-spiller, CD, DVD og what not. Artister har vel neppe vært rikere enn nå. Bill Gates har heller aldri vært rikere. Jeg lurer virkelig på hvor fattigdommen fra det påståtte tapte salget er. Jeg ser det ikke når jeg ser meg rundt, gjør noen av dere?

[likferd]

Det var vel en litt rar sammenligning, siden jeg ikke tror produksjonskostnadene på en blåfilm er det samme som for dagens storfilmer Men pornobransjen har vel kansje også vært flinkere til å tilby nedlasting mot betaling enn den vanlige filmbransjen.

[NikkaYoichi]

Det var vel en litt rar sammenligning, siden jeg ikke tror produksjonskostnadene på en blåfilm er det samme som for dagens storfilmer Men pornobransjen har vel kansje også vært flinkere til å tilby nedlasting mot betaling enn den vanlige filmbransjen.

9007010[/snapback]

 

En rar sammenlikning? Vel, du tror ikke kostnadene til dagens storfilmer har noe med lønningene til skuespillere å gjøre blant annet? Kostnadene til storfilmene kunne vært kuttet betraktelig, men et ineffektivt system gjør at kostnadene er store.

 

Pornobransjen har ikke bare kanskje vært flinkere til å utnytte de distribusjonskanalene som til enhver tid har vært aktuelle, de har vært det.

 

De som husker godt husker nok at VHS og BETA også skulle være døden for filmbransjen, mens pornoindustrien jublet og utnyttet det nye mediet.

[BullUrge]

[likferd]

Joda, er enig i at lønningene er for store, men det er jo andre forskjeller på kostnadene også.. Pornofilm: en sofa og to skuespillere og du du er omtrent klar. Kansje en bluescreen for å legge på noe billige effekter. Folk bryr seg ikke om omgivelsene og "special effects" i en pornofilm.

[NikkaYoichi]

Joda, er enig i at lønningene er for store, men det er jo andre forskjeller på kostnadene også.. Pornofilm: en sofa og to skuespillere og du du er omtrent klar. Kansje en bluescreen for å legge på noe billige effekter. Folk bryr seg ikke om omgivelsene og "special effects" i en pornofilm.

9007097[/snapback]

 

Joda, men de har også ett mindre publikum. Samtidig som at færre kjøper slike filmer, derfor burde nedlastning være enda mer kritisk for den bransjen siden inntjeningspotensialet er mindre. Her i Norge finnes det ikke kinoer hvor de sender slike filmer slik det gjør i andre land. Ikke får de betalt for reklame for f.eks Freia på DVD-ene sine heller. Nå nei, man kommer ikke unna at de som er tilpassningsdyktige overlever, mens de som ikke klarer å tilpasse seg faller bort.

[ATWindsor]

Det var vel en litt rar sammenligning, siden jeg ikke tror produksjonskostnadene på en blåfilm er det samme som for dagens storfilmer Men pornobransjen har vel kansje også vært flinkere til å tilby nedlasting mot betaling enn den vanlige filmbransjen.

9007010[/snapback]

 

Men det er vel fort enda billigere å spille inn en plate, så sånn sett er ikke porno det billigste mediet.

 

AtW

[Sajber]

[90% av inntektene når jeg kjøper en plate av en artist? Ja, hvis ikke mer. Tall skal jeg finne til deg etter at jeg har spist middag.

 

 

Det må ha vært en lang middag.

Vi får smøre oss med tålmodighet i påvente av maten og tallene dine.

 

I mellom tiden ser du en grov oversikt over fordelingen her.

15% av ppd til artist(gjerne mer, sjeldent mindre)

9 % av ppd til opphavsmenn(eks. nCb) såkalt mekanisk royalty.

3-5 % av ppd til produsent(mindre i utlandet)

20-30 % rabatter til butikk(store kjeder kan presse rabattene, små kan ikke)

 

Sitter du igjen med 90 % kanskje?

Så kan du også spørre hvem som betaler for gildet?

 

Dersom artisten selv har stått for produksjons kostnaden vil det normalt dreie seg om lisensiering av masteren evnt en distribusjons avtale. Dette kommer da naturligvis artisten til gode.

 

Gleder meg til å se tallene dine.

Vil nok vise seg å være deg som ikke har peiling på hva du snakker om.

 

Får se om jeg får tid til å svare på resten av posten din senere.

[NgZ]

[90% av inntektene når jeg kjøper en plate av en artist? Ja, hvis ikke mer. Tall skal jeg finne til deg etter at jeg har spist middag.

Det må ha vært en lang middag.

Vi får smøre oss med tålmodighet i påvente av maten og tallene dine.

 

I mellom tiden ser du en grov oversikt over fordelingen her.

15% av ppd til artist(gjerne mer, sjeldent mindre)

9016788[/snapback]

Så jeg bommet med fem prosent? Huff, og huff. Beklager at jeg ikke kom tilbake med nøyaktige tall og kilder, jeg fant dem dessverre ikke med en gang, og glemte det helt.

 

Rundt omkring på andre forum hevdes det også 10-15%, men denneartikkelen tegner et mye svartere bilde av situasjonen.

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

The Problem With Music

by Steve Albini

 

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

 

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an "A & R" rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire." because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly. These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave.

 

Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well. There are several reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip to the current musical "scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences. The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it. When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast. By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.

 

These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on. The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength. These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer or even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.

 

One of my favorite bands was held hostage for the better part of two years by a slick young "He's not like a label guy at all," A & R rep, on the basis of such a deal memo. He had failed to come through on any of his promises [something he did with similar effect to another well-known band], and so the band wanted out. Another label expressed interest, but when the A & R man was asked to release the band, he said he would need money or points, or possibly both, before he would consider it. The new label was afraid the price would be too dear, and they said no thanks. On the cusp of making their signature album, an excellent band, humiliated, broke up from the stress and the many months of inactivity. There's this band. They're pretty ordinary, but they're also pretty good, so they've attracted some attention. They're signed to a moderate-sized "independent" label owned by a distribution company, and they have another two albums owed to the label. They're a little ambitious. They'd like to get signed by a major label so they can have some security you know, get some good equipment, tour in a proper tour bus -- nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work. To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut, sure, but it's only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it's money well spent. Anyways, it doesn't cost them anything if it doesn't work. 15% of nothing isn't much! One day an A & R scout calls them, says he's 'been following them for a while now, and when their manager mentioned them to him, it just "clicked." Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of working out a deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time. They meet the guy, and y'know what -- he's not what they expected from a label guy. He's young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all their favorite bands. He's like one of them. He tells them he wants to go to bat for them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything is possible with the right attitude.

 

They conclude the evening by taking home a copy of a deal memo they wrote out and signed on the spot. The A & R guy was full of great ideas, even talked about using a name producer. Butch Vig is out of the question-he wants 100 g's and three points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000 plus three points. Even that's a little steep, so maybe they'll go with that guy who used to be in David Letterman's band. He only wants three points. Or they can have just anybody record it (like Warton Tiers, maybe-- cost you 5 or 7 grand] and have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points. It was a lot to think about. Well, they like this guy and they trust him. Besides, they already signed the deal memo. He must have been serious about wanting them to sign. They break the news to their current label, and the label manager says he wants them to succeed, so they have his blessing. He will need to be compensated, of course, for the remaining albums left on their contract, but he'll work it out with the label himself.

 

Sub Pop made millions from selling off Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn't done bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and 60 grand for the Poster Children-- without having to sell a single additional record. It'll be something modest. The new label doesn't mind, so long as it's recoupable out of royalties. Well, they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected. They figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer--one who says he's experienced in entertainment law and he hammers out a few bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They'll be great royalty: 13% [less a 1O% packaging deduction]. Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever. The old label only wants 50 grand, an no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go. They're signed for four years, with options on each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That's a lot of money in any man's English. The first year's advance alone is $250,000. Just think about it, a quarter million, just for being in a rock band! Their manager thinks it's a great deal, especially the large advance. Besides, he knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they get signed, and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they'll be making that money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that contract over too. Hell, it's free money. Their booking agent is excited about the band signing to a major. He says they can maybe average $1,000 or $2,000 a night from now on. That's enough to justify a five week tour, and with tour support, they can use a proper crew, buy some good equipment and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty expensive, but if you figure in the price of a hotel room for everybody In the band and crew, they're actually about the same cost. Some bands like Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab use buses on their tours even when they're getting paid only a couple hundred bucks a night, and this tour should earn at least a grand or two every night. It'll be worth it. The band will be more comfortable and will play better.

 

The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! ridiculous! There's a gold mine here! The lawyer Should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe. They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo. They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman's band. He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old "vintage" microphones. Boy, were they "warm." He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded very "punchy," yet "warm." All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies! Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are: These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. income is bold and underlined, expenses are not.

Advance: $ 250,000

Manager's cut: $ 37,500

Legal fees: $ 10,000

Recording Budget: $ 150,000

Producer's advance: $ 50,000

Studio fee: $ 52,500

Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000

Recording tape: $ 8,000

Equipment rental: $ 5,000

Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000

Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000

Catering: $ 3,000

Mastering: $ 10,000

Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000

Video budget: $ 30,000

Cameras: $ 8,000

Crew: $ 5,000

Processing and transfers: $ 3,000

Off-line: $ 2,000

On-line editing: $ 3,000

Catering: $ 1,000

Stage and construction: $ 3,000

Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000

Director's fee: $ 3,000

Album Artwork: $ 5,000

Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000

Band fund: $ 15,000

New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000

New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000

New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000

New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000

New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000

Rehearsal space rental: $ 500

Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500

Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875

Bus: $ 25,000

Crew [3]: $ 7,500

Food and per diems: $ 7,875

Fuel: $ 3,000

Consumable supplies: $ 3,500

Wardrobe: $ 1,000

Promotion: $ 3,000

Tour gross income: $ 50,000

Agent's cut: $ 7,500

Manager's cut: $ 7,500

Merchandising advance: $ 20,000

Manager's cut: $ 3,000

Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000

Publishing advance: $ 20,000

Manager's cut: $ 3,000

Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000

Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 =

$3,000,000

Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]:

$ 351,000

Less advance: $ 250,000

Producer's points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:

$ 40,000

Promotional budget: $ 25,000

Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000

Net royalty: $ -14,000

Record company income:

 

Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 =

$1,625,000 gross income

Artist Royalties: $ 351,000

Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000

Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000

Gross profit: $ 7l0,000

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

 

Record company: $ 710,000

Producer: $ 90,000

Manager: $ 51,000

Studio: $ 52,500

Previous label: $ 50,000

Agent: $ 7,500

Lawyer: $ 12,000

Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25

 

The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

 

Steve Albini is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's "In Utero".

Så må du gjerne komme med kilder på dine tall også.

 

 

Gleder meg til å se tallene dine.

Vil nok vise seg å være deg som ikke har peiling på hva du snakker om.

 

Får se om jeg får tid til å svare på resten av posten din  senere.

9016788[/snapback]

Nå har jeg litt problemer med å skjønne hva du mener. Mener du at fem prosent forskjell fra mine og dine tall viser at jeg ikke vet hva jeg snakker om?

 

Ser frem til et svar på resten av innlegget, da jeg mener det var mer interessant en fem prosent fra eller til (eller 85% fra eller til). Det er platebransjens totale inkompetanse og omstillingsudugelighet som irriterer meg mest. Eventuell grådighet også ovenfor artistene kan bare bidra til å sette dem i et enda dårligere lys enn de allerede er i, og da blir det mørkt.

[Dr_Fr_Einstein]

I anledning Live Earth: Redd planeten, last ned musikk og spar engergi til CDer, covere, transport, butikklokaler, reise til platebutikken. Bruk pengene på de som gjør den viktige jobben: musikerne! (og gi omstillingsvegrende plateselskaper et spark bak)

Endret 7. juli 2007 av Dr_Fr_Einstein

[Sajber]

Så jeg bommet med fem prosent? Huff, og huff. Beklager at jeg ikke kom tilbake med nøyaktige tall og kilder, jeg fant dem dessverre ikke med en gang, og glemte det helt.

 

Beklager sent svar.

 

Royalties til opphavsmenn og produsenter da. Teller ikke det. Det er en utgift akkurat på lik linje med royalties tio artist.

 

Du bommer med betraktelig mer enn 5 %. Og at du velger å ganske enkelt ignorere de kostnadene som passer deg blir bare dumt.

 

Rundt omkring på andre forum hevdes det også 10-15%, men denneartikkelen tegner et mye svartere bilde av situasjonen.Så må du gjerne komme med kilder på dine tall også.

 

Kjenner godt til den artikeelen og den er egentlig ikke verdt så mye.

Han har bevisst unnlatt å ta med royalties fra publishing.

Artikkelen tegner i så måte ikke et realistisk bilde av noe som helst.

MAO søppel.

 

Man skal ikke tro alt man leser.

 

Nå har jeg litt problemer med å skjønne hva du mener. Mener du at fem prosent forskjell fra mine og dine tall viser at jeg ikke vet hva jeg snakker om?

 

Som sagt.

At du velger å late som de andre royalty postene ikke "eksisterer" blir for dumt.

Regnestykket 15+9+5 har aldri blitt 15.

 

Ser frem til et svar på resten av innlegget, da jeg mener det var mer interessant en fem prosent fra eller til (eller 85% fra eller til). Det er platebransjens totale inkompetanse og omstillingsudugelighet som irriterer meg mest. Eventuell grådighet også ovenfor artistene kan bare bidra til å sette dem i et enda dårligere lys enn de allerede er i, og da blir det mørkt.

 

 

Jeg drikker mye melk så jeg antar det gjør meg til en ekspert på meieri industrien.

Det eneste du har oppnådd her er å vise at du faktisk mangler den "bransje kunnskapen" du påberoper deg å ha, både i forhold til rettigheter og økonomien.

 

Du er selvfølgelig i din fulle rett til å forme din egen mening men det er vanligvis en god ide å basere det på fakta istedenfor populære myter.