5) The artists aren't the bad guys.

I've gotten pretty tired of hearing "Artists are such whiners; they've got more money than they know what to do with, why are they trying to shut down Napster?". Or, in my case, I hear more of "Why won't the artists let you display the lyrics?".

The artists are not the ones targeting Napster or its clones, or targeting LyricFind (nobody's targeting LyricFind; it's been two-way cooperation all the way). The record companies and the RIAA are the ones who handle all the negotiation and litigation. They own the rights to the music, not the artists, and retain total control over its distribution. In many cases, artists have posted MP3s of their work on their web sites, only to be forced to remove them by their record label. Because the record companies own all the rights, they're the ones with the most to lose - not the artists.

But what about Metallica, you say? Why were they targeting Napster, then? Because Metallica is an exception to the record-industry rule: Metallica is one of the few bands who actually still own the rights to their music. They are, in effect, a mini label in themselves. Thus, they have the same interest that the record labels have.

And what about the argument that artists make so much money already, that they shouldn't be concerned with the small (if any) loss that results from illegal digital music. This, of course, is simply not true; the vast majority of musicians never see any royalty payments from their labels. Their royalties are garnisheed to cover production costs (what, you thought the label would pay these? Nope.), distribution costs, video costs, promotional costs, and all other expenses that come up. The label doesn't cover any expenses.

A few weeks ago I had the chance to speak with an internationally renowned band (name withheld so as not to get them in trouble with their label) when they were in town; when asked about royalties, one member stated "We'll never make enough money to pay the record companies what we owe them." And this is a band that's been around for over 20 years, has at least 10 albums, and more hits than I can count on my fingers. It shouldn't be this way.

Of course, nobody says it better than Courtney Love, whose speech at the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference last May stirred up quite a bit of controversy and dispelled a number of myths about the recording industry. To read a transcript of her speech (and I highly recommend it), visit http://salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html.

Even the highest-paid artists don't make nearly as much as you'd expect. Take the Backstreet Boys, for example. Last year, they made about $36 million, and were the fourth highest-paid musicians for the year (beaten by 'N Sync, Britney Spears, and The Beatles, if memory serves). $36 million may sound like a lot; but again, if you pare it down, it's not that much. Remember, there's five of them; this chops it down to $7.2 million each. Plus, on top of that, they have to pay all their staff (and trust me, they have a lot of staff), touring costs, promotional costs, and more. Even if they still cleared $5 million each (before taxes, of course), this is still FAR less than you would expect given their fame and astronomical record sales. How much do you think the fourth highest-paid actor received? Author? Athlete?

As a result, most artists are happy to see their music distributed through mediums such as Napster. The more people listen to their music, the more people are likely to buy their merchandise and go to their concerts, where they're more likely to clear a few bucks. A small dip in record sales can be more than made up for with the purchase of a couple concert tickets - and if they sell a T-Shirt to a fan, that's the equivalent of 10 CD sales.

Next: 6) The record companies (and the RIAA) are only doing their jobs.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8