Username: Guest
Admin: no
Printable Version
So you've just saved up your whole $30, and bought that CD. Whereabouts did all the money go to? The artists?
Hardly. Out of the full $17USD that a cd on Amazon.com might cost you, only 50¢ to $2.00 goes towards the
artist. The largest majority of the money goes towards the record company, that is the company which is supposed to be supporting the artist.
Not surprisingly, many artists, producers and other people involved in the production of music are quite irate about this.
Courtney Love has a long article at Salon about how most bands would be better off working at 7-11. She outlines how the record companies make sure that the band is billed for everything possible, often putting them in the red, even if their music sells really well.
But artists being ripped off isn't unique to buying physical CDs. The latest craze in music is Apple's iTunes. iTunes is on the surface, a great service. A track for $0.99 USD ($1.45AUD). When you're after that one song, it's certainly a lot cheaper than forking out $8 or so for a single. And those albums where there is only one decent song and the rest is filler? It's fantastic for this too. Only a couple of problems:
But hang on, you've only mentioned the consumer's point of view. What about the artists, when you buy that $0.99 track from iTunes? Well, the average revenue break up of a $0.99 track is as follows:
| Who? | How Much? |
|---|---|
| Apple: | $0.35 |
| Recording Company: | $0.53 |
| Artist: | $0.11 |
| Total: | $0.99 |
Yes, that's right. Out of the $0.99 that you paid for that track, only 11¢ went to the artist!1 And out of that 11¢, the artist still has to pay all costs, including studio time, production costs, music video creation and so forth!
But as terrible as this is, isn't 11¢ better than nothing? Just because the recording studios are ripping off the artists too, does that mean that we should? Are there any alternatives coming around the corner?
Next -> Copyright in the Courts - Setting the scene for the next battle