AT&T Tech Support 360
April 28, 2006 6:42 PM PDT
Sony playing a Cheap Trick on musicians?
- Related Stories
-
Skype strikes deals with music publishers
April 25, 2006 -
Tension grows between labels and digital radio
January 13, 2006 -
Probe may delay change in digital-music prices
January 4, 2006
Filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in New York, the suit claims Sony should pay its musicians more as part of a contract the company has allegedly failed to live up to, according to reports published on the Web sites of Forbes and Billboard magazines.
The bands, which were at the height of their popularity more than 20 years ago, claim in their suit that they're entitled to half of the profits from online sales at sites such as iTunes and Napster, Forbes reported.
Right now the bands receive only 4.5 cents on every 99 cent sale of one of their songs, the suit claims.
Neither Sony representatives nor managers for the bands could be reached for comment Friday evening.
See more CNET content tagged:
musician,
Sony Corp.,
band
But when you sign your music rights away to a record service what would they expect? it's been going on since the Beatles.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14495
At issue is the way Sony accounts for such sales.
Rather than paying artists approximately 30 cents of the 70
cents it receives for digital downloads (after deducting payments
to music publishers), the suit alleges that Sony Music treats each
download as a sale of a physical CD or cassette tape, only paying
on 85 per cent of such "sales" (due to a fiction that there is
breakage of product), deducting a further 20 per cent fee for
container/packaging charges associated with the digital
downloads (although there are none), and reducing its payments
by a further 50 per cent "audiofile" deduction, yielding a
payment to the Sony Music recording artists of approximately 4
1/2 cents per digital download.
After the light slap on the wrist Sony got from the rootkit class
action, why wouldn't they?
Lampie
Anyway, the big 4 signed under their corporate seals, they gave various strenuous legal undertakings to be followed at all times! These large cleared funds plus interest could be easily tapped for nefarious illegal deeds like payola, outright bribery and any other questionable legal activity, rather than use any corporate funds or profits which could be subject to external scrutiny!
The other interesting aspect, is the double standard the record companies say to the artists on one hand and what the contract with Apple Computer says!
At last check, when pushing for variable fees up to $2-79 new releases to discount old, the record majors let it slip, that they will make a minimum of 79 cents out of each 99 cents that APPLE charges at zero cost to themselves!(all data is supplied in the standardard regular Computer Data Tape format as specified by the record companies!! Apple does all the marketing , conversion and storage on their servers in their specific lossy drm'd format!)
I can see why they filed it in New York State, as it all the companies legal registered home office, with Eliot's corporate seal signed legal doc's and thus leading to his investigating notes from '02 to '04 , together with the Apple's Legal Contract obtained under the discovery motions! Thus the attorneys at SONY BMG's with even a lonely brain cell , will realise they have minimal chance of winning in any Federal Court!
Sadly, it does show however that Record Companies, have no soul and are not adverse to stealing from both the customer and the entertainer simultaneously!
Nice one guys!, your future choices may be limited once the RICO charges start flying after this case, for people who steal, deserve no less???????
But I'm sure there is no corruption or anything...
********..! THEY are the thieves, not us..!!!
The major labels are no longer needed. They should have been dissolved at least a decade ago. Why do you think they want to go to subscription services? So it becomes even more difficult to see who should get paid, and at the same time, dilluting the efforts, and livelihood of the artists.
It is disgusting, and sick, that the RIAA/Labels have any weight at all, since the only thing they produce are new methods to steal, sue, coerce, and lobby to protect their illegal business practices.
May the RIAA burn in Hades, or whatever dark abyss they wish not to go.
- What I don't understand is this...
-
by cubicleslave1
April 30, 2006 7:11 AM PDT
- I know that all these great artists initially signed contracts with
-
Reply to this comment
View
all 2 replies
-
-
See all 23 Comments >>major labels in order to get their careers off the ground. They
got marketing and distribution support in exchange for signing
on the dotted line. But that was in the day of vinyl and CD's.
Now it's different, since we can download. So why don't any of
the big name musicians jump ship? Why do they still continue to
work under these draconian contracts? If Madonna (or some
other big name artist) decided to go it alone, I'm sure we'd all be
just as happy to pay to download her stuff as when it was under
a label. She doesn't need the support of a label anymore, she's
already very famous. Anyone know how these contracts are
written? Do they indenture the artist for life? That would be like
slavery and should be illegal.