Tópico: Pirataria X Músicos X Produtores

[FxF]

Fonte: TimesOnline (The Times)

Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing?

[gráfico em Flash convertido para imagem]


This is the graph the record industry doesn’t want you to see.

It shows the fate of the three main pillars of music industry revenue - recorded music, live music, and PRS revenues (royalties collected on behalf of artists when their music is played in public) over the last 5 years.

We’ve broken each category into two sub-categories so that, for any chunk of revenue - recorded music sales, for instance - you can see the percentage that goes to the artist, and the percentage that goes elsewhere. (In the case of recorded music, the lion’s share of revenue goes to the record label; in the case of live, the promoter takes a cut etc.)

Hopefully, this analysis - and there’s more on the nuts and bolts of our method below - sheds some factual light on the claims and counter-claims that are paranoically sweeping across the music industry establishment, not least that put forward by the singer Lily Allen in this paper recently - and the BPI - that artists are losing out as a result of the fall in sales of recorded of music.

The most immediate revelation, of course, is that at some point next year revenues from gigs payable to artists will for the first time overtake revenues accrued by labels from sales of recorded music.

Why live revenues have grown so stridently is beyond the scope of this article, but our data - compiled from a PRS for Music report and the BPI - make two things clear: one, that the growth in live revenue shows no signs of slowing and two, that live is by far and away the most lucrative section of industry revenue for artists themselves, because they retain such a big percentage of the money from ticket sales.

(It’s often claimed that live revenues are only/mostly benefitting so-called ‘heritage acts’. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t shed any light on this because live revenues are not broken down by type of act, gig size or ticket price.)

[gráfico em Flash convertido para imagem]


An even more striking thing, perhaps, emerges in this second graph, namely that revenues accrued by artists themselves have in fact risen over the past 5 years, despite the fall in record sales. (All the blue bars in the chart above represent revenues that go directly to artists. As you can see, the ‘blue total’ has risen noticeably.) This is mostly because of live revenues, but also because of the growing amount collected by the PRS on behalf of artists, which accounts for a much bigger chunk of industry revenues than most people realise.

(PRS revenues in fact break down into 4 categories - Broadcast and Online, Public Performance, Mechanical, International. You can explore this in more detail in this spreadsheet, which contains all our data.)

It’s interesting too that, overall, industry revenues have grown in the period - though admittedly not by much - which arguably adds strength to the notion that, when the BPI releases its annual report claiming how much ‘the music industry’ has suffered from the growth in illegal file-sharing, what it perhaps should be saying is how much the record labels have suffered.

For other people in the industry, not least artists, the future arguably holds more promise.

A couple of notes about our methods: the data, as pointed out, comes from the PRS and the BPI. We are grateful to the PRS in particular for helping us with a model to work out what percentage of a particular chunk of industry revenue was likely to be returned to artists. In the case of recorded music, we used an average 90/10 per cent split between labels/artists. In the case of live we used a 90/10 split between artists/promoters.

We hit one major snag. The PRS report gives a figure for annual live music revenues but it does not indicate what percentage of that goes to venues. (Before doing the split for live music revenues between artist and promoter, you first need to take out the percentage that goes to the venue.) We asked several big concert promoters and venue managers - AEG Europe, Carling Academy, and the PRS itself - what percentage of gig revenue one could reasonably assume, on average, went to the venue, and none would make an estimate. The closest we came to an answer was a remark from a senior industry source said ‘only a small percentage of live goes to venues’. That’s the best we had to work with.

We’ve therefore done the above calculations on the assumption that 10 per cent of live revenues go to the venue, but in these two graphs, we show how the situation would change if that figure rose to 20 per cent.

We would welcome any feedback on a more accurate figure to use for the venue’s share of live revenues, and any more general feedback on our methods.

[FxF]

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-benefits-musicians-hurts-their-labels-091216/

Piracy Benefits Musicians, Hurts Their Labels?
Written by Ernesto on December 16, 2009

The past decade has brought about a major shift in income streams for the music business. Musicians have seen a spectacular rise in income from live performances which contributed to a significant increase in their overall revenue. The labels on the other hand are struggling, mostly due to the decreased revenue from recorded music.

Much like the movie industry, the major record labels have made a habit of attributing decreasing income from album and single sales to illegal downloading. Aside from the fact that most research has found no direct link between piracy and a decrease in sales, those who take a better look at how the money streams are divided will find that the musicians themselves are actually better off than a decade ago.

Last month the Times Online published an interesting graph plotting the various revenue figures over the last 5 years, as reported by the UK music industry themselves. The data clearly shows how the distribution of music industry income has shifted over time. Music labels earn less from recorded music today than they did five years ago, while artists have seen a huge increase in revenues from live performances.

In part inspired by the Times Online article, Swedish researchers came up with similar calculations for the Swedish music industry, which reached a very similar conclusion. Since Napster and later Limewire and BitTorrent gained an audience of hundreds of millions of people, less revenue was made from album and single sales.

For the people who actually perform on stage the outcome is entirely different though. Revenue for musicians actually went up through increased income from live gigs, perhaps thanks to piracy which offers an easy tool to discover new music. Please note, however, that no causal relationship between illegal filesharing and music revenues has been researched.
Musicians Revenue in Swedish Kroner

Musicians Revenue in Swedish Kroner



What is crystal clear from the data, though, is that the revenue streams within in industry are quickly changing. This hugely benefits the musicians who now get a much bigger share of the proverbial pie than a decade ago. Much of this shift can be attributed to the increased income from live performances which nearly doubled to 774 million Swedish Kroner in 2008.

The income figures for the music industry as a whole are less positive though. The overall revenue for the music business has remained pretty much the same since 2000, and that’s just the raw number without an inflation correction.

The Music Industry Revenue



TorrentFreak contacted Daniel Johansson, researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology, who carried out the research together with his colleague Markus Larsson. Johansson told us that he’s not a supporter of theories suggesting that illegal downloading benefits musicians.

“I can not say anything about how filesharing has influenced the figures, since that is not part of the study,” Johansson told TorrentFreak. “Everyone seems to make the assumption that file sharing is ‘good’ for artists because of this, I disagree,” adding that he cannot back this up with data.

Nevertheless, some have argued that illegal downloading makes it easier to discover new artists, which may indeed boost the number of concert visits, explaining the study’s findings. Another explanation could simply be that the tickets for live gigs have doubled since 2000, while the attendance didn’t increase or decrease.

Whatever the reasons, musicians are doing better now than at the beginning of the decade, despite or in spite of piracy.

[_tiago]

Muito interessante, se for verdade, muito interessante mesmo! Mas ainda assim continua sendo ilegal, não!?
Aliás, eu considero alguém perder ou ganhar dinheiro numa situação o último pretexto pra um ato ou comportamento.
Prefiro ainda respeitar, por mais que eu discorde, e eu não necessariamente discorde nesse ponto, a lei.
Todos se utilizam de um parâmetro para o certo e o errado. Tem gente que se utiliza da vontade de consumo, outros o dinheiro, alguns a lei... E assim vai!

[FxF]

Meu objetivo a princípio é esse só para desmistificar o argumento de "a pirataria vai acabar com os músicos"

[Barata Tenno]

Músicos que ja tem sucesso realmente vão ter mais lucros, mas e os músicos iniciantes?Vão viver de shows pra 20 pessoas?Ja que não vai ter uma gravadora pra bancar o início da carreira e eles não vendem CD por causa dos piratas, quem vai bancar?O Fox?Quantos shows o Fox ja foi na vida dele?

Ja foi dito trilhões de vezes aqui, o músico que quiser disponibilizar as músicas dele de graça e sair da gravadora tem todo o direito, o que não pode é um bando de folgados tomar pra si a decisão de pegar de graça o trabalho dos outros.

[_tiago]

Meu objetivo a princípio é esse só para desmistificar o argumento de "a pirataria vai acabar com os músicos"

Acabar com os músicos!?
Meio estranho isso...

[Moro]

não acho interessante. acho esperado.

vamos analisar

A empresa X possui a linha de negócio (LOB) 1,2,3 e 4.
É esperado que as LOBs cresçam durante o tempo. Em empresas, existem metas para cada LOB.

O que esse gráfico mostra é apenas que a LOB de vendas de CDs caiu, e que como esperado, as outras LOBs cresceram e durante o período analisado a somatória das LOBs ficou maior que um total anterior no tempo.

Óbvio.

Se a LOB de venda de CDs continuasse crescendo, o ganho das gravadoras/artistas poderiam ser maiores, poderiam investir mais, etc.. ..
Isso acontece com a empresas de software também.

vamos por outro exemplo:

Se políticos estão roubando mais hoje, e o Brasil está ganhando mais dinheiro, isso não tem nada a ver com a conclusão de que eles não estão atrapalhando o desenvolvimento do país.

[Felius]

Músicos que ja tem sucesso realmente vão ter mais lucros, mas e os músicos iniciantes?Vão viver de shows pra 20 pessoas?Ja que não vai ter uma gravadora pra bancar o início da carreira e eles não vendem CD por causa dos piratas, quem vai bancar?O Fox?Quantos shows o Fox ja foi na vida dele?

Ja foi dito trilhões de vezes aqui, o músico que quiser disponibilizar as músicas dele de graça e sair da gravadora tem todo o direito, o que não pode é um bando de folgados tomar pra si a decisão de pegar de graça o trabalho dos outros.

Na verdade barata, com a internet como meio de distribuição, músicos inciantes conseguem muito mais facilidade para ser estabelecer e serem conhecidos. Se a música dele esta de graça para ser ouvida na internet, legal ou ilegamente, mais pessoas passam a conhece-los, e enquanto não vão viver disso de começo, é mais facil que se fosse depender de gravadoras.

Em um outro ponto, com os contratos que as gravadoras gostavam de fazer com os artistas, o mesmo NÃO tem o direito de disponibilizar as músicas deles e sair da gravadora. Na verdade, muitas vezes não tem nem o direito de fazer música sem a gravadora deixar e ser dona (que é ELA que possui os direitos das músicas, NÃO o artista) de todos os direitos da música.

Linkzinho:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Trechinho bem interessante:

These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on. The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength. These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer or even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.

[FxF]

As gravadoras não são bem investidoras. Elas controlam os meios de mídia, quase como um "truste" contra novos talentos. Na verdade, é até engraçado que caso uma banda queira tocar em uma rádio, a própria banda tem que bancar. Como evidência anedótica, uns caras que eu conheci nunca chegaram a levar a banda a fundo porque precisava de 10.000 para tocar na rádio.


Um texto legal:

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2009/02/savvy_brazilian_musicians_harn.php

Savvy Brazilian Musicians Harness the Power of Pirates



The BBC's global tech news show Digital Planet reports from Belém in Brazil on a rootsy version of the new business model that's likely to supersede the traditional music industry. It's musical sneakernet.

Since the invention of sound recording, musicians (and to an even greater extent, record companies) have made their money by putting out recordings and controlling who could copy them. In the analog era, this was fairly easy, as sound quality degraded with each successive copy generation. Whoever had the master tape of a hit song easily made money off it. Also, song lyrics and other sleeve notes were hard for pirates to copy and distribute well.

This system is now in an advanced state of collapse because of digital audio and the internet. Why pay for music when you can get it for free over the net? And song lyrics have effectively become free poetry on the web.

But at the same time, recording equipment has become cheap enough that any band can have better gear than the Beatles without the involvement of a record company. And music fans are still happy to pay for tickets to live performances. So for the past decade unsigned bands have been doing their best to reach non-paying listeners over the net. If they succeed, they draw a bigger paying crowd at their gigs. That's where the music business is going.

In Belém, apparently there's a large music-loving, party-happy audience that doesn't download music -- most likely because people don't have broadband. Instead they buy cheap pirated CDs in the street. What the city's musicians do, then, instead of uploading mp3 files on the net, is they burn CDs and hand them out to the street vendors to copy. The musicians make no money off of the sales. But they build a reputation that allows them to draw a paying crowd at their gigs -- largely dance-centric sound system affairs.

So the lesson is this: illicit copying is not a threat to artists. It is the new distribution system. Recorded music has gone from an exclusive high investment, high returns business to an inclusive low investment, low returns one. Measured in turnover, it has gone from a non-existent business (19th century) to a huge one (20th century) to a rapidly shrinking one (21st century). But no natural law says that a musician or a holder of record-company stock must be able to become insanely rich. Talented musicians aren't driven to make music mainly by the prospect of a jetset lifestyle. And music lovers don't measure the art's vitality in terms of turnover. We look at the amount of good music being made, and music is alive and well and innovating, thank you very much. The people decrying the ongoing development are record company representatives and musical has-beens who are living off their back catalogue -- not the next generation's Beatles. They're busy putting free mp3s on-line or slipping CDs to their local street pirate and building a following.

[Barata Tenno]

Músicos que ja tem sucesso realmente vão ter mais lucros, mas e os músicos iniciantes?Vão viver de shows pra 20 pessoas?Ja que não vai ter uma gravadora pra bancar o início da carreira e eles não vendem CD por causa dos piratas, quem vai bancar?O Fox?Quantos shows o Fox ja foi na vida dele?

Ja foi dito trilhões de vezes aqui, o músico que quiser disponibilizar as músicas dele de graça e sair da gravadora tem todo o direito, o que não pode é um bando de folgados tomar pra si a decisão de pegar de graça o trabalho dos outros.

Na verdade barata, com a internet como meio de distribuição, músicos inciantes conseguem muito mais facilidade para ser estabelecer e serem conhecidos. Se a música dele esta de graça para ser ouvida na internet, legal ou ilegamente, mais pessoas passam a conhece-los, e enquanto não vão viver disso de começo, é mais facil que se fosse depender de gravadoras.

Em um outro ponto, com os contratos que as gravadoras gostavam de fazer com os artistas, o mesmo NÃO tem o direito de disponibilizar as músicas deles e sair da gravadora. Na verdade, muitas vezes não tem nem o direito de fazer música sem a gravadora deixar e ser dona (que é ELA que possui os direitos das músicas, NÃO o artista) de todos os direitos da música.

Linkzinho:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Trechinho bem interessante:

These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on. The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength. These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer or even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.

Mas veja bem, ser conhecido e ganhar dinheiro são coisas bem diferentes.....

Várias pequenas bandas tem um relativo sucesso na internet, e depois assinam contratos com gravadoras, como aconteceu com a famosa CSS, começaram na internet, ficaram famosos e talz..... mas pra ganharem dinheiro precisaram de um investimento, que foi feito por uma gravadora.Com a grana colocada pela gravadora e os contatos que a gravadora tem, fizeram shows internacionais, tiveram albuns distribuidos no mundo inteiro.
Como um pobretão do cafundó do interior faz isso?Ele liga para uma pesoa nos EUA e diz que quer fazer um show lá?Ele manda um CD-R pra uma loja no Japão?

Se só a internet é tão eficiente e as gravadoras tão ruins, porque diabos as bandas e músicos continuam assinand contrato com elas?


Se a gravadora faz um investimento, com divulgação, distribuição, propaganda, nada mais justo que ela ganhe por isso.

Como disse, quem quiser fazer música só pela internet, é livre, é só não assinar com uma gravadora..... Vai ter algumas vantagens e outras desvantagens, mas pelo jeito que anda o mercado parece que ainda é vantajoso para artistas assinarem contrato.(ou eles são extremamente burros)

[Moro]

o grande problema é a confusão que fazem entre ser contra a pirataria e ser contra a distribuição de músicas de graça livremente pela internet.

Ficam com esse BlaBlaBla de "Ah, pequenas artistas se dão bem porque podem distribuir sua música sem as gravadoras". E isso é... fantástico. Opção deles, que bom que não dependem mais de gravadoras para ir para a frente. Quando forem famosos, provavelmente vão querer uma gravadora e vão querer ganhar dinheiro de CDs.

Uma coisa não exclui a outra. Nem tem nada a ver com a outra.