“iTunes iSbogus”
Comments
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. Any of those artists can make a vehicle for their music if they want to.
Apple’s plugged and continues to plug enough labor into that that saying that they are “making” 3x what the artists do is not far. The artists cut is 100% profit, as they don’t have anything invested in this method of song delivery. Apple has to cover a LOT of operational and development costs, that are ongoing with the service. And as a iTunes user and music store consumer, they have a fine service and are obviously employeeing top notch programmers, marketers, and developers.
Projecting a valid hate of the RIAA onto Apple is just wrong. Artists like Alanis Morrisette would NOT be jumping on the iTunes music store if it were not more fair to artists. It’s completely bogus that the record companies get 53 cents of the sale. They also have nothing invested, no additional cost, to support this vehicle.
So yes, the record label’s share is ridiculous, and the artists’ share could be higher, but Apple’s not taking anyone for a ride here. And despite that article’s sensationalized claims, it *is* a step forward. It is high quality music delivered quickly online, in a legal fashion. Consumers are happy, artists definitely like it better than their alternatives, and the company providing it is able to turn a profit.
Sounds like a good road to travel down to me. What’s the alternative? Say that since it still gives money to the RIAA to not support it? That won’t do anything but delay progress further. If a company with Apple’s prowess can’t succeed, than no one else is going to try--and for SURE won’t try to go any steps further from the RIAA.
emd’s point is also valid that until the RIAA is destroyed, artists get their money from ticket sales at concerts anyway, and not CD sales. So if there’s another way that they can get heard, bringing more people to their shows, and make 11 cents a pop, they are much happier than any other present methods.
And dang I wish I wasn’t so tired and could either spell, proofread, or edit my posts. 
Hmm, looking back at the post I think it may come off much more “anti-iTunes” than intended. I’m certainly not against iTunes and I can’t wait until they release a Windows-compatible version.
Mostly, it just comes down to the fact that the media cartel gets way too big a cut for what they do. The whole entire system needs to be revamped from the ground up to reflect the huge changes in technology, delivery methods, etc. that are available now that weren’t available 5, 10, 20 years ago since those are the models the cartels are still using.
People way smarter and more informed than me have posted information on this topic in abundance, so I’m not going to pretend to know how the change should be done. I just know it should be and that if it were I’m pretty darned sure the artists would be getting a more representative cut of any sales (regardless of CD, MP3, whatever).
Amen Brutha. I thought it sounded like a different take on your usual music industry stance than normal. Though my vent was more broadly applicable to the link on your article, and not so much you.
OK then, let’s hear some alternatives!
I think iTunes is a great compromise. Indy artists can get listed.
The issue with other methods is getting your name out there. Any alternative must come up with a way to advertise the musicians music.
By emd on August 27, 2003 at 06:09pm link