Eisner blames Jobs, and Radiohead cleans up

With respect to Mr. Iain Collins comments [and no i'm not a corporation, i'm a freelance actor & writer/director, and no, my name isn't johnny] I have a few things to say regarding his point of view re: theft by piracy.

Firstly, I am fortunate enough to be able to say I make my living as an actor.

I have achieved success in this otherwise insane pursuit through immense, hard graft, slaving in bars for years to put myself through drama school, and simply taking the chance to face overwhelming odds of failure, not to mention inevitable ribbing from friends and family alike, for simply havign the courage to chase down a dream -- something most people like I imagine Mr Collins here are too afraid to do -- and a dream that fortunately paid off.

But what does Mr. Collins do for a living, I wonder? Is he "on the dole /welfare", sponging off the government? Is he independently wealthy and therefore some kind of champagne socialist harping on about a business he clearly knows nothing about? Or is he a working stiff stuck in a miserable job he never imagined he'd sell his boyhood soul out to do, whilst attempting to make up for that quiet inner-rotting through writing uninformed nonsense in blogs like this?

The only other option available is he has, in fact, like me, actually followed his childhood dream, and currently makes his living as an actor, musician, writer, director, producer, or combination of the above.

If so, and congratulations to him, but why would he write this nonsense when he would know that piracy in fact hurts the little guy FAR MORE than anyone else.

If this basic fact has somehow escaped him, let me remind him that it's us little guys, that 98% of self-sufficient working actors, writers and fledgling directors who don't make "$20M a picture" (literally only about seven people in Hollywood do) depend on RESIDUALS from the movies, tv shows and music - a considerable share of revenue from sales that this gentleman instead falsely purports just goes 'straight to the corporations.' Oh, if i ha d a nicekl everytime i ehard that old chestnut, i'd be makign $20M all right..

So what uninformed people like Mr Collins DON'T tell you is that for every record you steal via the e-waves; every movie you rip off froma friend or download from some shady peer-to-peer service, or buy in the street for a 'hefty discount'; every tv show you don't pay aa nickel for, you are -- and i'm not even being dramatic here -- literally STEALING MONEY from bold-hearted, struggling risk-takers who worked their butts off, risked their LIVES and potential livelihoods by turning down 'real jobs', to work ridiculous hours -- not unusually 18hrs/day -- thinking, dreaming, honing, failing, crafting, musing, despairing, cajoling, praying, working, slaving and charming that muse deep within themselves to bring you the so-called "end-product" entertainment you enjoy..yet so CLEARLY take for granted.

I say shame on you. Really. These people literally live off thier salaries and residual cheques which are based purely on SALES.

Why pay?

For starters, it's the right thing to do. It's not stealing. The alternative means you may as well walk in to your local conrer shop and, smiling at the shopkeeper you know and love, stuff a couple of their chocolate bars down your shorts and walk. same thing, literally. And yes, the law sees it that way too.

From the point of view of keeping the talent flowing and keeping creativity in check, the more movies that sell, the more chances there are for NEW TALENT to enter the pool because this means people are buying, which means we can start to take more RISKS with our storytelling, which means we enjoy makign the movies and - end result - you have a better time at the theater on your date. Sounds like win/win, right? Not to Mr. Collins, or people like him.

In fact, the irony here is that the less movies sell, because more people are too busy stealing them, the less well even the studios do, let alone the Indies; and lord knows, coroporations don't like to lose money. So what happens?

In the end, a movie must be MARKETED to recoup it's costs. When movies frail to recoup, and - say - you were a studio or film financier, and your investors money is on the line, along with YOUR JOB, what would YOU do? Would you be willing to take more risks with that money? Or would you know you have to lessen the risk, knowing your neck is on the block if a movie tanks?

Therefore, by stealing movies, you're actually CONTRIBUTING to the two things Mr Collins purports to be against: a) supporting $20M actors -- in fact you're helping wedge out the little guys and give ALL the big parts to the big boys, even in the Indies (they don't call them BANKABLE STARS for nothing) and b) to keeping movies formulaic and pr

Jeff, thanks for contributing...In fact, I was using your company (without stating names) for my numbers. Great service, btw!

I had forgotten about iTunes payoff to 'the big boys'...the fact that it's even MORE than the indie payout seems to suggest that's the best way to go. I think the majority of the people in awe over Radiohead's move have little to no knowledge of the recording industry, or record sales. Too easy to jump on the bandwagon and shout conspiracy theories about 'the man'.

I've been doing design work and promo work with the group Soulajar who releases their own material, and the iTunes payout has been fantastic! In fact, the iTunes thing was just an 'added bonus' to the internet distribution, but in turn has produced more online sales than the printed CD.

Does that mean the industry should ditch the CD format? No. It means the industry should produce more enticing deals to buy printed albums. Creative packaging, lower prices, interactive extras, etc.

Hi

Full disclosure here - I am the CEO of TuneCore and ran spinART Records (my label) for 19 years.

Just some stats:

As Radiohead were out of contract with a record label and controlled their master recordings they would not have made $1 per download from sales in iTunes. They would have made approx. $7.00 per album sale as well as approx $0.70 per song sold outside of the album.

If the band were still tied to a record label, the label would have paid them a per unit royalty - this varies from artist to artist from $1.35 for the "new" developing artist to over $2.00 per album sold for the "super stars".

I can not state if Radiohead's sales would have gone up or down compared to selling it on their own but I can state iTunes has music discovery tools (i.e. iMixes, Listeners Also Bought, email a friend, publish to web) that allow music discovery and increase album and song sales. My instinct is these tools tied to Apple's additional marketing (i.e. New Music Tuesday email, banner placement within the store etc) would have signifigantly increased sales, revenue and profile for the band.

This is by no means suggesting that Radiohead should, or should not, have not done a deal with iTunes. The reasons they have are theirs and valid. The decisions they made were theirs to make and were made based on thoughts and goals I have no insight into.

If Radiohead could not get a direct deal with iTunes (which is EXTREMELY unlikely) they, like any other artist, could have used TuneCore to get their music into iTunes. TuneCore takes NO backend fee and passes through 100% of the revenue to the artist in a non-exclusive arrangement that can be cancelled at any time. An artist using TuneCore receives $7.00 each time their album sells.

In other words, by having their album in iTunes, Radiohead would have made a LOT more money on each album and/or song sold.

Thank You
Jeff Price
TuneCore

This might be a bit tangential but what I find interesting about this debate over content, copyright and who deserves to get paid is the difference between media types/work being sold. Why is it, for example, that an author who completes a novel usually retains ownership of the work, while musicians usually have to give up the rights of their work to corporations (record labels)? Certainly there are investments made in the work by labels to produce the work(s), but certainly there is the investment of publishers in the form of advances and printing costs. Printing costs incidentally, dwarf the costs of the digital download overhead. Now I am completely uninformed about the "cut" that authors receive for their works, but certainly what Radiohead has done is admirable in the sense that only Radiohead owns and sells their work. I think this is the way it should be, especially for digital downloads, which as I stated require little overhead to host and sell. Having set up an online download store for music myself with very little technical experience is quite the democratizing feeling. Cutting out the unnecessary profiteering of Apple, Warner Music or whomever else is certainly beneficial for the artist and I think by proxy for the consumer as well. I will add here that the content providers here are the musicians, artists, producers, actors and all those who actually do the hard work of creating entertainment, not just the promotional machine that peddles it. The machine should work for its content generators, not the other way around. But hey, I am an idealist.

Hate to break it to ya, but iTunes pays $.70 for every $.99 song sold. 10 songs sold for roughly $10 = $7 in the artists pocket. So, saying they would have gotten payed $1 per album otherwise is a lie. I think this Radiohead crap is just a form of viral advertisement and is laughable to anyone who is the least bit involved in the 'industry'. A band like Radiohead can get away with doing it because they have a large following who frequents their website. They have management and PR who have direct connection to newswire...At that fame level, they are already operating like their own label/business. The average joe is not going to be able to be recognized doing the same thing. You still need a form of distro and advertisement in order to be recognized/heard. This is where labels come in.

Just because you sign with a label to release your record into major distro, doesn't mean the same thing as signing a recording contract...

The independent musicians are making $0.60-$0.65 a song through iTunes (i.e. by going through CD baby). RadioHead could have made at least $6.00 - $7.00 per CD off of iTunes as independent artists/

@ Maxwell (#27) -- well, i will give you that. you have a point there about hearing songs on a radio, or at a CD store (wait, there are still CD stores?) -- but itunes doesn't let you hear more than 30 seconds of each song, no matter what. i would buy radiohead's stuff unheard because i have never ever been disappointed in their work, and i trust that the new stuff would be the same. but that's me. each person is different.

Here are my two cents on the whole biz. It is bit of a long one,

@ 3 Ben the Dog. Actors being paid $20 million per film is not the norm in the film industry, but rather the very rare exception. Many, many actors average much less for their role in films and the average viewer may not have taken into account that they have to spread that wage over the period of time between films. An actor who is an over night success generally struggles for 8 to 12 years before making any real money. Don't forget those who make the 8 to 12 year struggle and never get above a B lead. Actor are also faced with the prospect of constantly being replaced by the next new hot actor and have some of the least job security of any profession.

Also if a movie takes 2 years to film and an actor does not find work immediately after their last gig, it can be quite a long time between pay checks. How well would the average person fair, spreading their pay over that period of time. That does not take into account that most actors have to pay out a reasonable amount of their salary to publicist, agents and others if they want to land future films. This is their support staff, their employees that need payment, that very few seem to be aware of.

Now, the rest of the film is actually made by other staff than actors (hence the topic of this bit regarding writers). You know why most people walk out of a film after the credits roll? It's because the list is so friggin' long. Pre-production teams, post-production, special effects (using Mac's of course), junior and senior editors, set designers, makeup artists, lighting specialists, grips, camera men and women, stunt actors, directors, and producers all need to get paid along with the actors and writers.

The irony of this topic and these posts is that most people are all for musicians getting paid more but give actors a hard time. There are many musicians who write their own work and produce it from top to bottom, but their are also many who rely heavily on lyricists, sound engineers, and composer to take their rough idea of a song and make it worthy of a listen. That doesn't take into account all of the publicity and distribution that goes into each album as well. There is a lot happening behind the red curtain that we just don't see when we hit 'play'.

@ 13 Harrywolf and other pro piracy advocates. I agree with you that the industry needs change. I am all for musicians getting paid more for their work. I love Apple's stance on a fair price for music and TV shows and support iTunes and it's format 100%. I also do believe that the music and film industry is holding on to an old format that is changing whether they like it or not, but piracy is not 'the path to freedom' as some would have us believe. It is stealing. I have done it and my friends have done it but it doens't make it any more acceptable.

If you want to rebel against the industry, refuse to buy the music, or don't go see the film but I don't think it is very intelligent to rally against the industry, shout up and down about raising the cut that artists get, then go home and download Desperate Housewives or Fall Out Boy because you think you somehow deserve it for free.

P.S. Love TUAW, great blog.

@ Frank. Yes you can listen to normal albums first. Try double clicking a song on iTunes, going to your local CD store and listening to one through their headphones, or even turning on the radio. I couldn't do that with In Rainbows. So I didn't pay.

i paid $10 for radiohead's new album, and i don't regret it one bit. i agree that it's not as flawless as some of their earlier stuff, but i still think that is has some tracks alone that make it worth the price i paid.

and FWIW, radiohead did not "give away their album for free." they said, "pay us what you think it's worth". if you think their work is worth nothing, pay nothing. but i think doing that would be a slap in the face to a band that is showing that they trust their fans.

as for "i didn't pay for it because i couldn't listen to it first", when has that EVER been an option with a new album by a band? you take the chance and pay for it because you value the band and the work they've done previously, and are just hoping that the goodness continues with the new release. that's what fans do. this feeling of entitlement is just incredible...