> Am 24.10.2011 20:56, schrieb Folderol:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:06:39 -0400
>> Joe Hartley wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:37:54 -0400
>>> Paul Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> what an interesting claim. perhaps you explain to me how it is that
>>>> this is for sale at (typically) US__PLACEHOLDER__0_.49 per track:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.emusic.com/listen/#/album/Global-Illage-Sushilove-Sessions-MP...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> 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.