said by ColorBASIC :

The artist gets money from touring as well. If their music is popular, they will do very well. If their music sucks, the music publisher who did the investing and took the risk loses money as well.

If the artist thinks they are getting a raw deal, they can sign with a different label or self publish.

said by ColorBASIC :

Wow, the concept of an artist having to actual WORK for their money is shocking to some people. Some artists just expect to do a recording session and the money should just flow in by the millions.

But if you want to take advantage of RIAA's immense and expensive to support resources, and you want the RIAA membership to risk millions putting together an album and promoting an untested artist so that you dont' have to do all that work, it will cost you .70 of a dollar and you make the bulk of your money actually PLAYING your music for those fans you expect to buy your music.

Any artist that is so lazy that they're not willing to do any work doesn't deserve zillions of dollars.

IOW, that .70 buys the artist the "resources and financial backing" and in exchange, if their music is good, the artist stands to make MILLIONS touring the nation or world playing for their fans. That's a fair deal IMO.

Resources and financial backing are expensive...just look at how much interest you pay on a home mortgage over the life of the loan.

Meanwhile Madonna looks to have done pretty well under the oppressive thumb of the RIAA membership.

said by qworster :

But the RIAA gets 70 cents of every 99 cents spent for a song on iTunes.

The artist/singer get 7 cents to split.

said by ColorBASIC :

Toby Keith isn't with an RIAA label and doesn't appear to be living in a refrigerator box eating dog food...White Trash with Money was #2 Billboard without the RIAA. Gnarls Barkley gets plenty of airplay without the RIAA as well.

The RIAA doesn't control what I listen to and no artist is forced to sign with an RIAA member label. Artists not wanting to pay the RIAA member label just have to be willing to do the work the label does (promotion, networking, getting the music out there). I hear plenty of indie music on Sirius and on the internet that isn't from RIAA labels. But then again I don't listen to Top 40 because Top 40 music for the most part sucks ass.

And despite their best efforts, the RIAA doesn't seem to be able to control Steve Jobs and iTunes. Music is still $1 a song and RIAA artists are filthy rich.

The whole point is the RIAA DOESN'T control distribution. They're worried that Apple will be controlling phone music distribution and the history of Apple and iTunes that I've seen is that they refuse any price increase from the current $1/song model.

said by qworster :

The RIAA decides how much to spend and what to spend it on, and the artist gets to pay it out of their paltry share!

Don't believe me? Read these:

»www.negativland.com/albini.html

»archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2···14/love/

said by ColorBASIC :

Good for Apple, good for consumers.

said by ColorBASIC :

Like following me from thread to thread trolling like some Crayon wielding disgruntled ex-girlfriend with her panties in a bunch has become yours.

said by jmn1207 :

Who, in there right mind, can self-publish? Who has the type of resources and financial backing to make it on their own? Madonna? The music industry has always been, for the most part, a brutal industry for newcomers. Why should any talented artist be forced to hit the road to make a living? If the music is good and enough people can hear it, buy it, and play it, that should be more than enough to have a lucrative business for any budding creator of music.