KThunder wrote:
marketing, production, and distrabution cost nothing then? not the mention trying to protect your product from people who think its ok to cut them out of any profits
Yes they do cost, but the majority of the
profits goes directly to the label, the artists are usually lucky if they get half what the label gets.
Unless you're running your own label or you're a big star (like U2, Elton John big, not Spice Girls big) then you're not going to be making too much money.
Artists make more money by touring than releasing albums/singles.
And instead of paying money on this copy protection stuff they should just do an internal investigation and find the people who leak the stuff online. They've got more chance at being successful that way.
@Roj, you beat me to the Reznor link :-P
from the article:
Barg couldn't imagine anyone expected her to pay $3,000 — $7.87 per song — for some 1980s ballads and Spice Girls tunes she downloaded for laughs in her dorm room.
The thing is, they've to discount this sh*tpop to sell the CDs when they're
new yet they still charge the premium for the copyright theft when they're lucky to actually get a legal sale of the song now?
