Here's an update, and a high level look at the numbers and in support of Dane's last post.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-le...ay-case-2016-6

I think Zeppelin wins. Friday's testimony wins it for the defense. At least it should. That is the piece this all hinges on IMO.

Does anyone believe that music available to consumers would be better overall if musicians received the lion's share of money spent on recorded music instead of the relative pittance they more typically receive? I don't really believe it.

I like the model where musicians make their money from touring and merchandise rather than royalties (the musical equivalent of coupon clipping).

Btw, if I wanted to reward my favorite artist beyond just attending a concert, do they generally make more money from the sale of a t-shirt or the sale of a CD at their merchandise table (assuming both were the same price)?

I am not sure about this part. Yes the remasters did sell-but nothing like Zep in its earning years as a touring band. They had 6 albums in the top 100 all at the same time. They sold something like 2 million records of Zep 4 in the first month-went on to sell 23 million copies. Physical Graffiti sold over 4 million copies its first few years-now sitting at 16 million.

A quick look at the RIAA site tends to go against your statement as well. If you go back 15 years- only 9 records have achieved another level of Gold or Platinum. 3 of those are greatest hits.

IMO their "bulk" came in the 70's with a huge boost when Compact Disc became available. Most fans went out and bought every issue on the "new" format.

With a 111.5 records sold- a majority (56 million plus) in the last 15 is not plausible-the RAII does not support those numbers. I don't think any of the remasters even broke number 1-if they did it was short lived and nothing close to having 6 records sit in the the top hundred for a year or two. My guess would be the remasters and all the Greatest hits issues added maybe 15 to 20 million on the tally, at best - according to the Gold/Plat awards-which is still better than most bands in a career.

Okay, you need to go back and re-read everything I've written.

In short, the Publishing rate per song pre-1971 was 2 cents and the band received 75% of that. That's peanuts. Albums cost anywhere from $2.99-$5.99 and the band only received 14% of the sale price.

The Statutory Rate and Artist Percentage doesn't change when the Stat Rate changes. It only changes when there's a Re-Mastered Edition released to the public, which is why so many Remasters of Classic Artists are issued every few years.

Once again, Led Zeppelin didn't allow their music to be used in film, TV or advertising until 1999. They've probably earned in excess of $20 million in sync fees and performance royalties since then but had zero sync income before that.

I'm not going to re-hash everything I've explained, so please read everything and if you still have questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Better is subjective. Fairer to the artist and songwriters?

Yes.

Except that's nearly impossible in 2016. Baby bands are funded by their parents on the Warp Tours, etc. No one earns money from unit sales. Performance Income is dwindling. Sales and Performance are being replaced by Streaming, which pays a pittance.


Back in the day, Merch and touring would generate more money than album sales and publishing, even though both numbers were substantially higher than today.

But in today's market, bands sign a "360 Deal", in which the record company takes a share of the album sales, publishing royalties, touring revenues and merchandise.

Fairness is also subjective.

These people disagree. In addition to that, Streaming is allowed due to a hole in a law written by Congress in 1972. Do you think the Congress in 1972 foresaw digital anything, let alone digital streaming?

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...tition-digital

Taylor Swift, Paul McCartney Among 180 Artists Signing Petition For Digital Copyright Reform

For the last three months, the music industry has been fighting -- or at least negotiating in public -- with YouTube.

Now, artists are adding their voices.

In an ad that will run Tuesday through Thursday in the Washington DC magazines Politico, The Hill, and Roll Call, 180 performers and songwriters are calling for reform of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which regulates copyright online. A range of big names from every genre signed the ad -- from Taylor Swift to Sir Paul McCartney, Vince Gill to Vince Staples, Carole King to the Kings of Leon -- as did 19 organizations and companies, including the major labels.

Music Industry A-Listers Call on Congress to Reform Copyright Act

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enacted in 1998, gives services like YouTube “safe harbor” from copyright infringement liability for the actions of their users, as long as they respond to takedown notices from rightsholders. In practice, labels and publishers say, this gives YouTube a negotiating advantage. The big labels and publishers have long had deals with the video service, but they have often said that the DMCA gives it leverage that services like Spotify don’t have. In March, the RIAA called this the “value grab.” Manager Irving Azoff, who organized the ad, has made DMCA reform a priority, speaking about the issue in February, when he accepted The Recording Academy President's Merit Award at Clive Davis' pre-Grammy Awards gala, and two weeks ago at the National Music Publishers Association annual meeting.

Artists are usually reluctant to get involved in copyright policy debates, but several signed an April 1 petition on the same topic. Like the petition many artists signed in 2012 against the Internet Radio Fairness act, which would have lowered online radio royalties, this represents a rare case in which most of the music business agrees on something.

The major labels are now negotiating new deals with YouTube -- Universal Music Group’s contract has already expired, although the companies continue to do business on an ongoing basis. At the same time, the U.S. Copyright Office is conducting a study of the DMCA safe harbors as the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is reviewing copyright law. This had made the DMCA an urgent issue for labels and publishers, which believe that YouTube’s free service makes it harder to convince music consumers to sign up for subscription services like Apple Music and Spotify. As performers and songwriters become more willing to speak out about copyright issues, the famously contentious music business seems to have found an issue it can unite around.

The DMCA, this week's ad says, “has allowed major tech companies to grow and generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone, while songwriters’ and artists’ earnings continue to diminish.” It suggests that the DMCA wasn’t intended to protect the kind of companies that benefit from it now -- a subject that’s been debated by lawyers and policymakers as well -- and asks for “sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment.”

YouTube has said it gets no advantage from the DMCA, since its Content ID system gives labels a way to remove or monetize their music, and 99.5 percent of music claims involve it as opposed to manual DMCA requests. This implies that Content ID is very effective, but it’s hard to know for sure, since no one measures how much music the system doesn’t identify. YouTube also points out that it has paid more than $3 billion to the music business, and that much of this revenue is generated by casual music fans who might not subscribe to other services anyway.

However, some online-based artists have been speaking out on behalf of YouTube. After Azoff wrote an open letter to YouTube last month, the video creator Hank Green, who runs the YouTube channel Vlogbrothers, responded with a letter than made the case that the service is good for the music business. On June 15, Green announced that he and other creators were forming The Internet Creators Guild to advocate for professional online creators. The guild will apparently not pressure online platforms for better terms, but it will “unify the voice of online creators to create change.” One wonders whether this unified voice could be raised to oppose those of music rightsholders, since Google, which owns YouTube, has sometimes argued that copyright enforcement suppresses online creativity.

Two other artists have been especially critical of YouTube. Trent Reznor, no stranger to technology given his role at Apple Music, told Billboard on June 13 that YouTube was “built on the backs of free, stolen content.” Nikki Sixx’ band Sixx:A.M. also wrote a detailed open letter to YouTube, appealing to Larry Page, chief executive of Google’s parent company Alphabet, to better compensate musicians. Last week, YouTube responded, in a statement to Music Business Worldwide that said “the voices of the artists are being heard.”

Now, it seems, those voices are speaking louder.

Oh I am sure you are correct-but when you look at the overall picture-it makes no sense. An active touring band (biggest in the world) selling records as fast as they can print them, while selling out night after night-makes less in a Majority of their career...

then a retired band- selling a fraction of units while being slowly forgotten by a new generation.

It is no wonder why a band like Rush-sells their entire portfolio for a lump sum. David Bowie did this too I think.

I am sure this goes for the Stones as well-who sold most of their records decades ago-but probably make far more money now.

Thanks for posting all the info-it is very interesting!

The reason why it doesn't make sense is because of inflation and the fact that their first four albums were released pre-1972, which meant they their royalties were infinitesimally low compared to the 90's (3x as much) or the new millennium (more than 4x as much).

Also, if you'll recall, CD's were $14.99-$17.99 for more than a decade. So 14% of 4.99 is .70 cents per unit where as 14% of $15.99 is $2.24 per unit. That's a huge difference when we're talking 100 million records ($70 million versus $224 million). Also, I'd add that since Zeppelin would have been considered a superstar act, they would have likely earned 21% per CD sale as opposed to the 14% they earned per unit in the late 60's and 70's.

Also, the RIAA is completely unreliable. They certified on Albums Shipped, not Point of Sale, which wouldn't come along until Soundscan in the early 90's. Record companies would often ship Gold (500,000 units) and even Platinum (1,000,000 units). What most people don't know is that the record company allowed as much as 30% in return each quarter. So a label would ship 500,000 to get a certification, then allow as many as 150,000 of those units to be returned at a loss. Those would often go to the record clubs (such as Columbia House) and be resold at 75% of retail, but would appear as "shipped" again, thus inflating the numbers!

The old joke at Casablanca Records, which was owned by Neil Bogart, who signed bands such as Kiss and Donna Summer, was they'd "Ship Gold and Return Platinum".

All the labels did it, which makes the RIAA numbers to be very skewed. Only the accountants knew the actual sales figures, as they're allowed three years from the date of release to audit.

Man that's a lot of money! I feel much better about all of my illegal downloads now.:Poke: Dane

Just kidding Dane. I pay for my downloads. I just wanted to rib you a little.

No, they don't (and if they did, they'd obviously be wrong). It's a shame you weren't willing to weigh in with your subjective opinion. I would have been interested to hear it.

In answer to your question, no, I don't think Congress anticipated digital streaming in the 70s.

As for DCMA reform, I'd favor less protection for rights holders, not more. If that leads music's fat cats to quit making music, so be it. Music will still exist.

The issue isn't about "Fat Cats". The issue is that if people can't earn a living, afford to buy a home or a car because it doesn't pay, then talented people will look for other ways to earn a living and stop creating music.

It's already happening in a sense. The most talented musician/composers/producers in the world aren't earning a living as rock stars, they're composing and producing music for Film, TV and Advertising.

It doesn't pay to be a "rock star" in this millennia.

Good grief.

That doesn't bother me at all. I've noticed no dearth of music. Which brings me back to my question that you chose not to weigh in on.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find very little of this millennia's popular music, whether it's rap, hip hop, pop, rock, country and even metal, appealing in any way.


Which question is that?

Back on topic:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...t-plant-905078

Earlier in the morning, one of Led Zeppelin's accountants estimated that Page has earned $615,000 in "Stairway" royalties since 2011 and Plant has earned $532,000, before taxes

Earlier in the morning, one of Led Zeppelin's accountants estimated that Page has earned $615,000 in "Stairway" royalties since 2011 and Plant has earned $532,000, before taxes. That's a far cry from the millions Malofiy's expert estimated on Friday. Page took the stand for a second time right before the lunch recess and will continue to testify this afternoon. It remains to be seen if Anderson will remind the court of his motion to have the judge ruled on the case as a matter of law when he rests.

-----
More proof that this single song did not earn $575 million in the past 37 years.