SBC: Re: copyrights (long)

cookieholley cookieholley@MCSI.NET
Sun Jan 23 20:36:08 EST 2000


It is my opinion that the artist ALWAYS get screwed to one degree or
another.



-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Lockard <r.d.lockard@att.net>
To: BLUES-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU <BLUES-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
Date: Sunday, January 23, 2000 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: SBC: Re: copyrights (long)


>Costs and Profits of A CD, before MP3 and Internet sales
>Source: www.fredonia.edu/
>
>Manufacturer's costs
>Recording expense $0.65
>Manufacturing expense 1.25
>Packaging 1.30
>Advertising and Promotion 2.00
>Artist's Royalty 1.60
>Freight .09
>Payment to musician's trust fund .65
>Manufacturer's profit 2.94
>Distributor's expenses and profit 1.50
>Retailer's expenses and profit 5.00
>TOTAL $16.98
>
>
>
>From: chuck n. <cnevitt@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
>> Someone, somewhere along the line, wrote:
>> <<<By treating the artist as a person hired to make the recording,  the
>> record company would own the recordings
>> and have the right to control their distribution and use them
indefinitely.
>> For artists, this radical change would mean that they are, in fact,
selling
>> the rights to their work  forever, rather than allowing a record company
to
>> use it for a limited period of time to market, distribute and  earn
profits
>> from it.>>>
>>
>> Radical change? When is the last time you've heard an artist--despite
paying
>> for all costs associated with the
>> making of a record--say that he/she/they now OWN the recording? I've
never
>> heard of it happening. Always has confused me...and it's something I've
>> asked about at least
>> a couple of times on this list. Why is it, that after all the costs are
>> recouped, that the label STILL owns it, sells it, leases it, etc instead
of
>> the artists? To me it sounds like taking out a car loan--paying it
off--only
>> to never receive a clear title on it.
>>
>> chuck
>



More information about the Blues-l mailing list