[LAU] OT - Digital Rights

[Hartmut Noack]

Am 24.10.2011 20:56, schrieb Folderol:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:06:39 -0400
> Joe Hartley<jh at brainiac.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:37:54 -0400
>> Paul Davis<paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> what an interesting claim. perhaps you explain to me how it is that
>>> this is for sale at (typically) US$0.49 per track:
>>>
>>>     http://www.emusic.com/listen/#/album/Global-Illage-Sushilove-Sessions-MP3-Download/12031810.html:
>>>
>>> and yet I'm still several thousand dollars in debt from the process
>>> that led to its creation?
>>
>> It's interesting to me that while the process of music distribution
>> is vastly different, the mechanics that screw over the musicians are
>> still firmly entrenched.
>>
>> Steve Albini wrote this classic piece on how a band that sells a
>> quarter-million albums can get boned:
>>      http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
>>
>> Nowadays you can sell much more directly, but that means you pay
>> the costs directly, too.  All that computer gear and the instruments
>> have to get paid for somehow!
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:13 PM, alexander<axeldenstore at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Imo it's absurd that you can charge 0,89€ for a locked down mp3 and get away
>>> with it.. I mean, the profit margins are 100%.. or well, they start out at ~
>>> -99.999...% and rise, approaching 99.99999999999999...% the more people who
>>> buy it.
>>
>> I believe that the most user-friendly sites (I've heard Amazon&  iTunes
>> referenced) give the artist ~70% of the take, while eMusic only gives
>> the artist ~30%.  So right off the bat, at *best* your direct profit is
>> only around 70%, but what about the time it takes to make the music?  What
>> about the space and gear needed to create the music?  Even if you're
>> using 100% open source software that you haven't shelled out a nickel
>> for and don't use any outboard gear at all, there's still an investment.
>>
>> I don't know too many people making money at music, and the ones who
>> do aren't making a lot, I can tell you.
>
> The 'investment' that most D.I.Y. recording artists forget is time! I just do
> it for fun myself, so I don't care, but if anyone is trying to be at all
> serious they should figure in their time at something like £30/hour.
>
>
Exactly.

And if you want to be just a bit more than DIY, you have to invest in 
putting your music on the road. That means transportable gear 
professional enough for concerts and transportation itself.

It may be possible, to make music with gear for some 2-3 monthly incomes 
in the western world but as soon as you are willing to make your music 
heard, you have to spend a years income at least.

Some may say: "But I can produce great stuff with software in the box 
only plus a vocal-mic and my old guitar for nearly nothing." That is 
correct but only for music that can be produced that way. And there are 
many great albums produced that way. But if your vision includes an 
orchestra or a big metal-drumset or simply live-gigs with a band, you 
have to follow and to pay for it.
So to make money with music or films is perfectly legitimate.

In a better world everybody interested in music would be aware of that 
and pay his/her fair share to finance musicians without being forced to 
by restriction management(and maybe even without the need to pay about 
90% of that share not to the musician but to the distributing 
companies). And in such a world technical restriction of 
distributionability would be superfluous indeed.

  best regards
hzn