Originally posted by Feòrag NicBhrìde:
Not if none of that was going to him! Here's the record company shenanighans to which I was referring .
Originally posted by CONNY'S PIG:
[b]Bilio might come on here and prompt us to buy from www.joebloggs/whatever.com
at a price of £49.99
Now, if Billy's got a label, then it might be better for him if I can buy direct from him, so he gets both royalty and the vendor's cut. Or he might be self-publishing, so to speak, in which case it's definitely better to buy direct, or via some vendor which hasn't demanded as big a discount as the likes of Amazon do. [/b]
I think there's a couple of issues here. For the conspiracy theorists in the world, it's always good to paint record companies as bad guys in all ways. That's completely dependent on your point of view, although I'd maintain not so - sadly, depite this assertion from many, life is never so black and white.
Now, I've never heard of 'Amanda F***ing Paalmer' (as her blog represents her), and to be truthful, I neither have the time or will to go through her complete blog to see how she ended up in her situation. Although I can sympathise that she feels she is being given a very raw deal by her label, let's not be naive here; it is both hers and her labels interest to exploit her catalogue as much as they can. I have to assume that how sales (and payments due in all royalty respects) of her work through iTunes or Amazon were discussed and agreed by her at the time she put pen to paper and signed that record deal - if the record company has gone against that contract agreement, then she has grounds legally to get them to pay up what she is due. But saying that, it is also in an artists interest to cover every aspect and protect their work however they have to. If the contract a person has signed with a label allowing work to be distributed has not specifically take into account royalites she would be entitled to from outlets like iTunes, then maybe next time they should hire a sharper lawyer (or whoever they engage with to represent them in contract negotiations) to make sure a costly mistake like that happens one time only. There is always devil and detail, and the lesson to be learned should be once bitten, twice shy.
I do not think this happens across the board with musicians. If this was the case, artists would refuse to let their music be distributed throigh those outlets. With iTunes, the case in point is The Beatles, whose work still does not appear there despite years of negotation. Presumably the way it is proposed to be distributed and handled by EMI and iTunes is not quite how they want their work to be represented, so negotations continue.
Billy does not have a record company at the moment, and mentioned in May that he went his separate ways from Voiceprint at the end of last year. But he does say on his music page
that his work is available through 'iTunes, eMusic, Amazon MPS, etc'. On that basis, I think you have to presume that he's covered his payment issues satisfactorily and that he's happy to have his work accessed and purchased by people through these outlets.
I'm looking forward to hearing the album. Sounds like it's going to be cracking!
All the best,