http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/osc2.html It's down a ways also. I posted it down there to bump the thread, but thought all y'all might not want to go hunting for it through all the other posts.
posted
Amen... by the way, the actual figures are really disturbing.
A band that has a gold record first release in the US can expect to make about $20-30k off the sales of that CD. They may make more of ticket and merchandise sales, but when you consider that the record labels, for example, still take 10% out for "breakage" even though CDs are far more durable than vinyl records, they are, in fact, being robbed.
And that is assuming that they wrote their own material. A band whose big hit is a cover tune (Alien Ant Farm comes immediately to mind) probably makes significantly less. They aren't getting royalties when "Smooth Criminal" plays... Michael Jackson (or whoever wrote it for him) is.
The bottom line is that the band will make about $1 a cd in royalties and from that figure is taken a whole host of things that are the down side of the "standard rich and famous contract". It costs less than $1 a CD to manufacture them in any large quantity (the major expense, believe it or not, is setting up the printing for the artwork). Who do you suppose gets all the rest of the $?
I'll see if I can find the article that details all this...
[ September 15, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here’s a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used "creative accounting" to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, thus depriving the creative people of their "percentage of profits."
They did it with 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'. The movie took practically pennies to make, and has made something like 660 million bucks. But the studio claims it barely broke even...huh?? What sort of money black hole do you have there?
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish somebody would tell OSC that we already have enough reasons to love him. This is sort of overkill.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: They did it with 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'. The movie took practically pennies to make, and has made something like 660 million bucks. But the studio claims it barely broke even...huh?? What sort of money black hole do you have there?
Where are you getting your information? MBFGW had a budget of $5 million, which I'll agree is "pennies" in the movie industry, especially for one of this quality, but it also only made about half of what you claim. Its world-wide box office intake was $356,500,000. Again, this is a huge profit from such a modest investment. However, my real quibble with you is that I have only ever heard of MBFGW being touted as an unmitigated box office success - a Cinderella dream scenario for a non-studio film. I've never heard anyone in any way even hint that this movie "barely broke even", and I pay pretty close attention to the movie industry, especially independant and semi-independant films.
I won't argue OSC's claim, but I don't think MBFGW is a very good example to illustrate the kind of "creative accounting" he is describing.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Big Fat Greek Wedding' Lawsuit The original producers of the hit independent film "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," have sued star Nia Vardalos and the production company headed by actors Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, saying they haven't received their share of the film's profits.
MPH Entertainment Inc. originally purchased the script from Vardalos for $60,000, then sold the rights to bigger producers in exchange for 3 percent of the profits, according to a lawsuit filed late Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
The lawsuit claims that, despite reports that the movie has grossed more than $600 million from worldwide box office receipts, home video sales and rentals and television broadcast rights, MPH has not received any of the profits.
An exhibit attached to the lawsuit claims to show an accounting statement from Gold Circle Films, one of the defendants, indicating the movie, which was released last year, has actually lost $20 million.
[ September 16, 2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This lets you calculate the royalties off a variety of deals. You can use the hints to create one of several standard situations (such as "five record deal", "indie label one record deal", "self-produced and distibuted") and so on.
This is the article I was referencing and the numbers are worse than I remembered them.
(warning, some use of foul language in second link)
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree with that article (for once) Why, if it were not for magpie-ing files off the internet I would have never discovered Dir en grey and other such extradinary bands.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thank you Kayla, I can't wait to rub this in my dad's face (He's ardently against MP3 sharing).
This seems to be a dominant sentiment here . . .
Um, OSC hasn't said it's not immoral to download mp3s against the wishes of their copyright holders. He has simply argued that their wishes are stupid, and that their crusade is absurdly out of all proportion to the harm being done. I agree with him, as far as that goes, but I still think it's immoral to steal music. The fact that the RIAA are a bunch of scumbags who rip off the listeners and rip off the artists doesn't change the fact that people who download songs illegally are taking something that was not given to them. Two wrongs don't make a hill of goat cheese, and all that.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how many *artists* are out there denounceing it and saying it's without your consent...
Dave Matthews is on record saying he's cool with it because it just means that the fans want to hear his music... he was only upset because stuff that wasn't ready for release got distributed.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moby was also, maybe not supportive, but definitely passive when it came to downloading songs via P2P. I remember KaZaA using one of his quotes in a "don't shut us down!" thing.
posted
So if artists have publicly given the okay, go for it. Control still rests with the artists, and I have no problem with that. Quite a few creators have reported increased sales once free copies of their works went online.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aye. In fact, just yesterday on CNN I was watching a short thing on that guy who wrote "Amazing" (forgot his name). Anyway, he got into the business by posting his songs on file-sharing programs. One day, a producer was downloading some songs, he found the artist, and they signed a record deal. I don't really like the artist, but I know people who do, and without mp3s and file-sharing programs, like KaZaA and Napster, nobody would have ever heard of him.
I really think more producers should follow the above producer's example. If they did, they wouldn't be intimidated by their looks or financial status. Anybody with a computer, internet access, and a CD ripper (probably over half of the US population) can put their songs on the 'net, and nobody can see what the guy on the other side looks like.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
