Even less money for artists

US copyright judges began hearing arguments last week in a case over just how small a slice can be given to the people who actually create music. Incredibly, the music industry wants to pay less to artists:

New-media players as Yahoo, Apple and Napster and major record labels agree with one another and want the royalty they pay to the publishers and songwriters to be lowered.

The companies that distribute digitally are pushing to pass on to the artist and publisher about 4% of the cost of a digital download, while the traditional labels are being generous in that they’re willing to give 8%. The publisher and artist then have to split this again, usually 50-50.

When it comes to streaming music, some contend that nothing at all should be paid to the creator. Fast internet connections (and the potential for wirelessly connected mobile devices in the near future which stream all their music) mean that streaming is no longer reserved for tinny internet radio. So it could be possible for a company to only stream music, make money on advertising and pay nothing to the creator of the songs.

On the other side, the National Music Publishers Association is asking for “12.5 cents per song for CDs and 15 cents for digital recordings”, which the other two sides claim will “impose a royalty that kills the proverbial goose and deprives songwriters and publishers of their golden egg”.

Seems to me that the smartest thing for musicians to do is simply turn their backs on the whole thing and do it themselves. It’s no longer that difficult to record and distribute. It might be easier to just sit back and let others take care of the business side of making music, but then it just stands to reason that they’ll take advantage of that. In fact, it’s worth rereading an old article on just how badly labels sometimes like to treat artists: The Problem With Music by Steve Albini