| reply to tubbynet
Re: A critical look at copyright said by tubbynet:but when you have an industry wherein the majority of the profits made from distribution do not make it into the hands of the artists (at least in the music industry), you simply have a single group looking to protecting their bottom line. the record labels are looking at loosing money and as such, they don't care who or what is stepped on in the process. q. Stop with this BS line.
The artists sign contracts ensuring their rights to payment and those are honored. Time to time, artists have had to sue over disagreements, but don't make it sound like the record companies are not giving the money to the artists. If this was true, no one would sign with the labels.
The artists get an advance and a piece of the backend after the expenses are recouped.
If you are stating otherwise, then you don't know what you are talking about and clearly not in the business.
--
It's all part of my rock and roll fantasy |
| Artists NEVER make more than the advance. The companies ensure this. Also all production expenses are subtracted from the advance. To argue the system is in anyway fair is an argument you lost before you started. If you want to argue they signed unfair contracts willingly then you are free to argue that point. Keep in mind others will argue that they didn't have a choice on the terms and that many of the clauses in the contracts would be considered illegal in most states.
If the record companies were looking after the artists interests the artists wouldn't be suing the labels to get part of the $$$ received from electronic sales as the record companies have argued in court the artists aren't entitled to revenues from digital sales. |
