kane

You can't use the DVD argument here because it is two different things. Fox created SC. They own it. They pay the writers, directors, actors and crew to be in it. They have all the rights to it. If they want to license it, no problem they own it and they want capitalize on it. There is no partnership. There is no collaboration. The studio owned everything from minute one. With music it is often a partnership. The artist creates the music and the label promotes and sells it so there is the chance that the two will eventually part ways and both now have interest to protect. If the entire crew and cast of SC quit tomorrow, Fox still owns the show and the cast and crew have no say in what happens with it.

For me it all comes down to the contract. You can't say the labels want more power than the contracts gives them because every contract is different. If the label retains the right to sell the old CDs on a retail level even after the act leaves the label then the act shouldn't be allowed to do things that could potentially hurt those sales. That is all I am saying. I'm not saying the labels should have infinite power, but if the contract allows them to sell on a retail level then that should be protected in some way.




I agree the modern technology does help reduce risks but my example above happens more often then you might think.

Another example. A guy named Shaun Mullins. He started his own record label, recorded his own albums and pretty much ran everything himself. He built up an audience by touring non-stop and was made a living playing small clubs and selling some records. He writes a song called Lullaby. Hi manager hears it and thinks it is a hit. This guy is more of storyteller than a pop song writer, but this song is catchy and has hit written all over it. He and Mullins decide to pursue a major label deal with this song. The song is a hot item. Several executives hear it and like it and they all think it is a hit. Mullins is in a good position because the labels now want him, but he doesn't need them. He ends up getting more than a million dollars in advance. The list goes on Pearl Jam got a huge advance. The contract/advance Nirvana got is still an industry standard. Yes, things like downloads, itunes and Myspace help to reduce the risk a label takes and it helps to test the market, but the label does take risks. Music goes in stages. When Britney spears hit, every label in the world went out and signed a good looking girl singer and many of them overpaid her and lost money. Now the emo/skater rock thing is hot and every label is trying to sign the new fall out boy or AFI and most of them will fail and lose money for the label. I was in the northwest right when the "grunge" sound with Pearl Jam and Nirvana exploded. I saw bands that had only ever played 2-3 live shows but had a decent demo get six figure advances because they had a sound the labels were looking for and that sound was hot so the labels wanted to cash in.

Lets just say for example an artist has a song the label thinks will be a hit. They sign him, release the song on itunes and make him a myspace. The song ends up selling around 500,000 copies and gets a ton of listens on myspace. Fantastic. It is a huge hit. The label gets what, about 50-75 cents per song sold. So even at 75 cents per song sold they have made around 350K. They now put the guy in the studio to record a record, pay to make a couple of videos and crank up the promotion machine. That is going to cost far more than the 350K that they got from the sale of the song. There is a better chance that the CD will sell because the guy already has a hit song, but it is still a risk. The public is fickle. If it took 3-6 months from the time the single hit until the CD hit the guy may not be hot anymore. He may not have another hit song on the album. The public might have changed and moved on. There are a lot of factors that go into it. The musical landscape is littered with the bodies of one hit wonders.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the labels are risking everything they have when they put an artist out there. This is their business and they know it is a gamble. It just seems to me like you think it is no gamble at all and there is no chance they could lose money and I'm trying to point out that that is not the case.




Again I say it is all in the contract and again you can't compare a TV show and a music CD. With a music CD they give away a few songs (the singles) they sell them on itunes or often give them away for free on the artists sites. You can also hear them for free in the videos or on the radio and they do this in hopes you will buy the CD. The TV show was free to start with. If you have a TV and an antenna you could watch the show for free. All they were trying to sell you is commercial time. They hope you watch the commercials during the show. If they make more money beyond that, great. Selling the shows on itunes and on DVD and on demand or anywhere else is all gravy. With music the label wants to sell you the CD right from the start so the two are not comparable. A more comparable thing would be a movie that gets a theatrical release. They put in in the theater then want to sell you it on DVD or pay per view. They also want to sell it to cable and TV and things like that. So you might argue if the movie comes out on DVD and pay per view at the same time the pay per view is hurting the DVD sales. Or if it comes out on HBO it is hurting the DVD sales. But those things are all times. Those that wanted it first paid for it in the theater. Then people bought or rented the DVD. Those that were not in a hurry to see it wait for HBO so the previous revenue streams had all but dried up when they open up a new one.

I have never said that the label should be allowed to cut off any and all future revenue streams. I have said that if they retain the rights to sell the CD on a retail level they should get the chance to protect that right. By encouraging fans to just download the CDs for free the artist is potentially damaging the label. If the artist owns the publishing to their music they are free to license it to TV shows, commercials, games whatever. If they want to give away every new song they write in the future they should be free to do that. But they shouldn't be allowed to purposely damage the label by telling fans not to buy the CD, but to instead just download it.