<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Band Sues Record Label for Digital Music Distribution Ripoff</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:36:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Music Lover</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-341492</link>
		<dc:creator>Music Lover</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:11:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-341492</guid>
		<description>Should the artist have signed the contract?

Record contracts, historically, are miserly toward the artist.  Example: Elton John&#039;s initial 1967 contract with This Record Company was for a royalty equal to: &quot;20 per cent of all net monies recieved by the company in respect of the master recordings, after the cost of musicians, singers, musical directors, orchestrations, copying, cartage of musical instruments, studio-rentals, technicians, tape-costs, editing, dubbing and re-dubbing and all like expenses incurred by the company in respect of any of the master recordings shall first have been recouped by the company.&quot; [pg.90, Elton, by Philip Norman].  These terms are not untypical of the era.  Note: this does NOT mean 20% of what a record might sell for at retail, it is from NET profit to the record company, not GROSS profit or sale price.

The Allman Brothers contract is interesting: What it covers is uses of the music that weren&#039;t concieved of within the contract, and specifies the rate of payment: 50% of profit.  

Is Universal paying the correct amount under that contract?  It isn&#039;t clear from the article, but considering they are suing for royalty payments my guess is that they believe they are not getting their 50%.

Whether new methods of distribution are covered by that same rider is probably open to debate. 
Given (as is pointed out) that the costs of digital distribution are minisule, the portion of profit is much larger than the physical distribution model ever allowed.

Do I think it is fair that the record company gets 50% for &quot;doing nothing&quot;? (&quot;doing nothing&quot; may be the general perception but it is inaccurate - development of the 1000+ other artists that never make it and thus fail to recoup that investment has to be funded from somewhere; but they also have their expenses covered before paying the artist.)  I&#039;d prefer to see a sliding scale that tilts toward the artist at the upper end, but that isn&#039;t the contract that is before the courts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Should the artist have signed the contract?</p>
<p>Record contracts, historically, are miserly toward the artist.  Example: Elton John&#8217;s initial 1967 contract with This Record Company was for a royalty equal to: &#8220;20 per cent of all net monies recieved by the company in respect of the master recordings, after the cost of musicians, singers, musical directors, orchestrations, copying, cartage of musical instruments, studio-rentals, technicians, tape-costs, editing, dubbing and re-dubbing and all like expenses incurred by the company in respect of any of the master recordings shall first have been recouped by the company.&#8221; [pg.90, Elton, by Philip Norman].  These terms are not untypical of the era.  Note: this does NOT mean 20% of what a record might sell for at retail, it is from NET profit to the record company, not GROSS profit or sale price.</p>
<p>The Allman Brothers contract is interesting: What it covers is uses of the music that weren&#8217;t concieved of within the contract, and specifies the rate of payment: 50% of profit.  </p>
<p>Is Universal paying the correct amount under that contract?  It isn&#8217;t clear from the article, but considering they are suing for royalty payments my guess is that they believe they are not getting their 50%.</p>
<p>Whether new methods of distribution are covered by that same rider is probably open to debate.<br />
Given (as is pointed out) that the costs of digital distribution are minisule, the portion of profit is much larger than the physical distribution model ever allowed.</p>
<p>Do I think it is fair that the record company gets 50% for &#8220;doing nothing&#8221;? (&#8220;doing nothing&#8221; may be the general perception but it is inaccurate &#8211; development of the 1000+ other artists that never make it and thus fail to recoup that investment has to be funded from somewhere; but they also have their expenses covered before paying the artist.)  I&#8217;d prefer to see a sliding scale that tilts toward the artist at the upper end, but that isn&#8217;t the contract that is before the courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: An Explanation Of My Views On Copyright Part Two &#171; Through the Looking Glass</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-300092</link>
		<dc:creator>An Explanation Of My Views On Copyright Part Two &#171; Through the Looking Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:19:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-300092</guid>
		<description>[...] Band Sues Record Label for Digital Music Distribution Ripoff [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Band Sues Record Label for Digital Music Distribution Ripoff [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chloe</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-226297</link>
		<dc:creator>Chloe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:23:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-226297</guid>
		<description>Hi Sarah

you may wish to contact Kelvin or Quintin who are looking for a band that is tight, experienced and ready to record material written by a well known writer of rock music.

commerce@lawcomex.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Sarah</p>
<p>you may wish to contact Kelvin or Quintin who are looking for a band that is tight, experienced and ready to record material written by a well known writer of rock music.</p>
<p><a href="mailto:commerce@lawcomex.com">commerce@lawcomex.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sarah</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-194407</link>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-194407</guid>
		<description>we would like you to have a record label for a band aged 12 years old a group of girls. 
so please will you contact back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>we would like you to have a record label for a band aged 12 years old a group of girls.<br />
so please will you contact back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boomer The Dog</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-193264</link>
		<dc:creator>Boomer The Dog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-193264</guid>
		<description>Sarge 2004, hit last FM. That&#039;s right, I have friends who are into Elvis and The Beatles.

The Allman Brothers are American Southern rock and started in the late 1960s and were popular through the 70s on the album rock charts. They are one of the big acts that made album rock popular I think, with others like Lynyrd Skynyrd. Ramblin&#039; Man must be their biggest song.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sarge 2004, hit last FM. That&#8217;s right, I have friends who are into Elvis and The Beatles.</p>
<p>The Allman Brothers are American Southern rock and started in the late 1960s and were popular through the 70s on the album rock charts. They are one of the big acts that made album rock popular I think, with others like Lynyrd Skynyrd. Ramblin&#8217; Man must be their biggest song.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Miss Arcade</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-190477</link>
		<dc:creator>Miss Arcade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 00:59:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-190477</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m 18 and I love The Allman Brothers. Music doesn&#039;t just die like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m 18 and I love The Allman Brothers. Music doesn&#8217;t just die like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drugshovel</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-179672</link>
		<dc:creator>Drugshovel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-179672</guid>
		<description>You know it&#039;s funny. The Big four are crying that they are being stolen from as well as the musicians by illegal downloads. And what are these guys doing? They are stealing from their own musicians. In the millions. And they just can&#039;t understand why nobody feels bad for them. It&#039;s just to bad once again it&#039;s the bands that get hurt. Hopefully the Allman Brothers will get one over on UMG. They deserve it.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know it&#8217;s funny. The Big four are crying that they are being stolen from as well as the musicians by illegal downloads. And what are these guys doing? They are stealing from their own musicians. In the millions. And they just can&#8217;t understand why nobody feels bad for them. It&#8217;s just to bad once again it&#8217;s the bands that get hurt. Hopefully the Allman Brothers will get one over on UMG. They deserve it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sarge2004</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/band_sues_record_label_for_digital_music_distribution_ripoff/#comment-179673</link>
		<dc:creator>sarge2004</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-179673</guid>
		<description>The old artists have all done well for themselves it is the new generation of producers and artists that are hurting badly with the illegal downloads no one as far as I know even knows who the allman brothers are the ones who are their fans are like 50? 60 ? 70 ?  they buy cd&#039;s  well that is if they are still buying and they for the most part do not know what a computer or the internet is or how to use it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The old artists have all done well for themselves it is the new generation of producers and artists that are hurting badly with the illegal downloads no one as far as I know even knows who the allman brothers are the ones who are their fans are like 50? 60 ? 70 ?  they buy cd&#8217;s  well that is if they are still buying and they for the most part do not know what a computer or the internet is or how to use it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)

Served from: www.zeropaid.com @ 2012-02-15 00:24:02 -->
