[Info-vax] OT: About Digital and divisions

[John Wallace]

On Nov 19, 8:35 pm, hel... at astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <5183dff0-f4a7-4b57-ae1c-f732db5d3... at q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, John
>
>
>
> Wallace <johnwalla... at gmail.com> writes:
> > I suspect that as well as an industry standard DRM, the iTunes
> > business model also offered the record industry a big enough cut to
> > keep them interested. The details used to be on Tom Robinson's web
> > site when he offered free download of his back catalogue. He is now on
> > iTunes and the details of who gets what have gone, but this is what
> > they used to be:
>
> >     iTunes downloads cost 79p per track. Writer/publisher get 6p,
> > Performer 6-8p, Visa/Mastercard 7p, Apple 12p, and Record Company
> > almost 50p. Sod that. Help yourself to my songs & share them with your
> > friends (continues)
>
> > (originally copied fromhttp://tomrobinson.com/records/music/index.htm
> > )
> > So the record company get roughly two thirds of the revenue and the
> > artist and the writer each get about a tenth of that. The Church of
> > Jobs gets as much as the artist and writer together.
>
> I remember reading this stuff from Tom Robinson.  Considering that he is
> now on iTunes, it doesn't look like his idealism was worth the electrons
> used to display it.
>
> AFAIK, at least in most countries there is nothing to stop someone from
> giving away the music they create; no-one is forced at gunpoint to sign
> with a record company.  Apparently a business model in which the record
> company takes a smaller cut is not viable, otherwise someone would have
> become successful with such a company (there is certainly no shortage of
> musicians complaining that their record company takes too large a cut).
>
> This is not to say that all record-company contracts are morally
> correct; certainly in the past the musicians did get too little payment,
> but those days are gone.
>
> Some people who support illegal downloading (or think it should be legal
> to download music without paying for it in any case) often use "I'm
> hurting the evil record companies, not the artist, who doesn't get much
> anyway" argument.  However, if that were really true, I suspect that we
> would have many more musicians not signing with record companies at all;
> the fact that there are very few suggests that their cut is worth it.
>
> It is easy for someone like Tom Robinson to give his catalogue away when
> hardly anyone is buying it anyway.

"Apparently a business model in which the record company takes a
smaller cut is not viable."

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that the major
content companies (records and movies including TV stuff) have a cosy
vertically integrated cartel with high barriers to entry.