Comments on: Sound Recording Just 6% of Average Musician’s Income (Updated)

By: Matthew Dear

Matthew Dear — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:57:00 +0000

this is taking into account the overall industries earnings, not individual earnings. This shows that because musicians do not earn enough from sound recording they are forced to supplement their income.

Manipulating data is sick and wrong

By: Linkdump from Facebook 1

Linkdump from Facebook 1 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 04:01:09 +0000

[...] Future of Music: Only 6% make money from music recordings — though it varies widely. Here’s another overview of the same research. [...]

By: Sound Recording Just 6% of Average Musician’s Income (Updated) « Geekpolitic : on Freedom, Privacy and Security

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:44:53 +0000

[...] Source: Sound Recording Just 6% of Average Musician’s Income (Updated) [...]

By: SomeGuy

SomeGuy — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 03:18:00 +0000

Actually even that 6% is misleading, most artists don’t realize how they are really being screwed until their career ends when the the bills they didn’t know they had show up and they discover most of their income was actually credit. I’ve even met a band that discovered (After all members were bankrupt) that every time the label published their next album they owed more than before.

By: Bruce Kaplan

Bruce Kaplan — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:32:00 +0000

This is a poorly reported story for many reasons. #1 The most important question is how has musicians income mix changed, i.e. what has been the effect of piracy before and after the advent of downloading. # 2 Most songwriting royalties are associated with the sale of recorded music. #3 the average musician is not a professional, but an aspiring or part time musician. But there are many people in between, who are trying to sell music to a niche audience, and they find that there music is easily pirated online. Don’t delude yourselves. Piracy hurts all kinds of musicians at all levels and diminishes the opportunities to make enough money to pay the rent.

By: BJonesTF

BJonesTF — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:53:00 +0000

Actually, It’s more a bit of a whine. People flag, disqus hides, if it gets a LOT of flags. If lots of posts by the same account gets lots and LOTS of flags, the system stops posting them as a probable spammer.

I’ve sent an email to Disqus asking about this, and maybe we’ll find out more, but one thing is odd, and that’s the timing on the flagging. It’s almost as if he’s flagging himself, because the activity of the flagging doesn’t match the activity of the site.

And as the person in charge of the moderation, I’ll say this, Nej is all for automated systems stopping infringement, but apparently automated systems that stop spam are heinous affronts to him because they’ve targeted him, and may be false.

That he sees no problems with these actions related to alleged copyright infringement targeting others, but has a problem with the same practices targeting spam that affect him, tells you everything you need to know about it.

And as a side note, if he’s so delicate that Frederika intimidates him, then perhaps the internet is not the place to be. Keyboard warriors are not intimidating, except to the weak of mind, or to those that like to play at being the victim.

By: 7th_Guest

7th_Guest — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:58:00 +0000

Why fight copyright?

Because culturally relevant art is still locked behind a Copyright paywall from us and our offspring for generations to come in near perpetuity still?

Because even minor excerpts or samplings of any influential audiovisual content released this very day by companies such as Disney will be legally too hot and risky even for your children’s children’s children’s children to sketch or depict by themselves and post up in whatever version of the Internet they might be using then without fear of litigious bullying/blackmailing by that company’s lawyers?

Because a shady, loose collection of Good Old White Boys rubbing shoulders with top tier representatives and legislators for 60 years now shouldn’t be allowed to act as perpetual gatekeepers of culture and knowledge to billions of people, at the expense of the latter’s privacy, due process, presumption of innocence and other civil liberties no less, based on of legislation relying on void assumptions and constantly bypassed social reciprocal obligations to begin with?

Pick whichever suits you most. To me, however, the opposite question seems to be the one more worth posing.

By: SoundnuoS

SoundnuoS — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:50:00 +0000

@Liam Jh

The only reason so much has been published and made available to the general public is because it has been sellable. To deny that, one has to live in an alternate reality imo.

By: Liam Jh

Liam Jh — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:01:00 +0000

Well just for the giggles then –
“Yes. We’ve had a major explosion in the diversity of popular culture since the post-war years. This is due in large part to the fact that it has been sellable.
This has created an unprecented possibility for artists of various kinds to make a living from their art”
No this is largely due to the use of mass transport and communication systems and open boarder policies that where developed pre and post-war, allowing a more diverse range of cultures to mingle and develop new ideas and sub-genres. It only became sellable when someone decides to put a price on it.

By: Liam Jh

Liam Jh — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:19:00 +0000

@SoundnouS

I didn’t post one, there is no point, I don’t have enough money too employ you.