|
 |
> It does?? I find that kind of mind-boggling since the music industry
> has been around for ages.
I just did some quick Googling and came up with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#Recorded_Music_Interim_Physical_Retail_Sales_in_2005
Which seems to indicate about $12bn of music sales in the top 20 countries,
so we can guess that the worldwide figure is tops $20bn.
And then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_software_companies
Where Microsoft alone sells $40bn of software, the total is probably around
$150bn.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote in message
news:47f48403$1@news.povray.org...
>> It does?? I find that kind of mind-boggling since the music industry
>> has been around for ages.
>
> I just did some quick Googling and came up with this:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#Recorded_Music_Interim_Physical_Retail_Sales_in_2005
>
> Which seems to indicate about $12bn of music sales in the top 20
> countries, so we can guess that the worldwide figure is tops $20bn.
>
> And then:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_software_companies
>
> Where Microsoft alone sells $40bn of software, the total is probably
> around $150bn.
Wow, that's a big difference indeed. So, maybe a government thinks
that the software industry can handle their own affairs accordingly, and the
music business get's a nice nudge now and again?
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Software companies have the reputation of making humongous scads of
>>> money and getting very very rich, whereas the picture of struggling
>>> artists just barely getting by remains a popular conception of the
>>> music industry. More to the point, a legislator can pretend to
>>> subscribe to these opinions while crafting legislation.
>>
>> You should compare software companies to record companies, and artists
>> to programmers. Who keeps the big bucks?
>
> One factor in the artist's favor, vs. the programmer, is that the artist
> is generally on his own time when engaged in the creative effort, and
> therefore owns his work. Programmers working for a software company do
> their creative work on company time, and therefore do not own one line
> of the software they write.
>
Not true, except for indie bands that haven't signed to a major label
yet, or a big band that has gotten past all of the contract stuff.
Bands get signed for a number of records, so they are contractually tied
to the label for how ever long it takes them to create that many albums.
They may, at that time, be getting paid living expenses and studio
costs, but the label takes that out of the amount the artists would get
from royalties. From the retail sales, the label gets their cut of cost
before figuring out the profit. From the profit, the label gets their
cut when they figure out the royalties that the band will get. From the
royalties, the label recoups the cost of the band list studio time and
the catering for the tour bus. What's left after that gets split between
the members of the band. Even if you figure it as a 50/50 split each
time, the band is splitting 12.5% of the total sales of an album.
And as for who owns the work? Usually the record label, unless the band
saved enough money from sales or made enough touring to buy back the
copyrights. Recording contracts, just like programmers and photographers
and others, can get hit with a 'work made for hire' clause. Most
musicians do not own the music they write, any more then a programmer
owns their code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
