|
Lady Gaga earned $167 from 1 million plays via Spotify
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 21 November, 2009
According to a report today from Expressen.se and translated by TorrentFreak, blockbuster star Lady Gaga made a measly $167 USD (SEK 1150) from the STIM (Swedish Performing Rights Society) after her song "Poker Face" was played one million times via Spotify over a 5-month period.
Spotify, the digital music service seen by some as the best chance the labels have to slow down piracy, appears ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2009 @ 20:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
SDF_GR
Member
1 product review
|
21. November 2009 @ 20:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
^^^ HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH ^^^
|
Senior Member
|
21. November 2009 @ 20:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
At least the number was ??more than zero,? he said.
Wow. I, an unemployed private citizen, can make an offer on par with what multi-billion dollar record companies offer.
Any artist who continues to sign music over to these blatantly greedy morons after a quote like that is completely hopeless.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2009 @ 22:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Lady Gaga is a she....
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2009 @ 22:21 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Lady Gaga is a she....
I said she did I not?
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2009 @ 22:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Lady Gaga is a she....
I said she did I not?
it was a joke, bah. never mind ^^
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2009 @ 22:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Lady Gaga is a she....
I said she did I not?
it was a joke, bah. never mind ^^
Now if you said Lady Gaga is a HE it would all make sense...
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2009 @ 23:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. November 2009 @ 23:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Spam much zip? :P
So are you telling me she can make money by not being on her back?
I do like spam sometimes but as spamy as Lady Gaga is...I just can not like her....
|
|
beanos66
Member
|
22. November 2009 @ 04:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've always said the record companies steal more from their artists than the fans. That's why they can afford to pay for all those lawyers and politicians
|
|
mikecUSA
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2009 @ 10:02 |
Link to this message
|
Look,what I'm about to write and all of my comments are NOT directed to "fair use" copiers, only pirates with no sense of "fair play".
The POPULAR Artists get fortunes from their record companies. It's a formula that's worked for every major artist since the mid 60's.
Artists will sonmetime later in their career regret the initial contract terms, based on thir success and their desire for better terms. Unsuccessful artist will also wish they had not signed the original contracts also but for reasons of failing to become popular and the resultant lack of fortune, or worse, negative cashflow.
Prior to the 60's there was a lot of raw deals but after that period artists sign up and the thing they sign is a contract. Any artist signing a bad record deal now after all of the history, deserves what they sign.
I'm not saying artists haven't been exploited or taken advantage of. There's been alot of that on both sides but it's only after the returns on investent have been calculated that we know who took advantage of whom. The artist that becomes succesful and famous due to talent and excellent promotion took advantage of the record company, the act that is not successful takes advantage of whatever sales did get generate by the "loser" recording act.
Artists like madonna Prince & John Fogerty etc have had well publicised battles with their record companies, and John Fogerty certainly got royally, and indisputably screwed. I must point out that it was only through the altruism of a record company that the unscrewing of John Fogerty took place.
Even an artist like Prince (who I only like about 10 songs from his entire catalog)made a ton of cash from his record deal but later balked at his contract when he decided he did not like the cut he got AFTER the record company made him famous.
How many super star artists are there right now without major record label backing?
None!
Even Ingrid Michaelson and Colbie Callait had to get picked up by a major label to recieve any real financial success. The money they are fronted is fronted based on the likelihood that they will bring in the amount fronted "and THEN some".
Yes production costs have to be paid back out of profits from sales and less popular artists are going to sometime end up upside down in the end finacially, but who's fault is that, the artist who had an overinflated view of their own talent and future popularity? The reocrd company that believed in their potential, but still has to cover their own ass for that top flight "in-demand" producer, or the consumer who was not willing to pay for that first hit single? Or god forbid that first album?
Without huge so called"greedy" record companies their would be no Notorious B.I.G. ---Rolling Stones ----Jack Johnson--Dave Matthews BEATLES, Michael Jackson Jackson 5 Osmonds, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Jurrassic 5, Nickelback, or Daughtry. name a fincanically super sucessful music recording act and you'll find an army of A&R people propping them up, and more than once a promising acts fortunes were lost due to lack of backing and promotion.
A lot of you guys are totally CLUELESS about the crazy money involved in launching music careers and how costly it really is for record companies to do what they do.
It doesn't all go to greedy lawyers with gold plated spinners on their Bently's, Bugatti's and Beamers.
The total outright collapse of the recording studio system will not be good for "shared musical culture" in the U.S. or worldwide. You narrowminded leeches that want to criticize the huge amount of money earned by CEO's and recording artists and movie producers try ponying up the money to produce just ONE QUALITY RECORDING one measley song, 5 minutes of a qulatiy movie. hah you have no talent for such things, so you can't even begin to CREATE, or FUND a creation or PROMOTE a creation.
So shut up about things you have not authority to comment on. You're worse that a corrupt politician. And least those bastards can affect some good for somebody. You're constant drum beat of wishing the collapse of the music and movie companies is annoying and pathetic.
You will inevitably help destroy the one thing that gives your otherwise empty lives any meaning or purpose at all. You're like a virus that eventually kiss it's host. The sad thing is, you don't even know it. You're pathetically ACCIDENTALLY suicidal.
The other thing that is laughable is how you fault the music and movie industry for trying to do everythinh it can to protect itself and destroy those who are ruthlessly trying to destroy them.
Again my comments are not directed to "fair use" copiers, only pirates with no sense of "fair play".
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2009 @ 11:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
Look,what I'm about to write and all of my comments are NOT directed to "fair use" copiers, only pirates with no sense of "fair play".
The POPULAR Artists get fortunes from their record companies. It's a formula that's worked for every major artist since the mid 60's.
Artists will sonmetime later in their career regret the initial contract terms, based on thir success and their desire for better terms. Unsuccessful artist will also wish they had not signed the original contracts also but for reasons of failing to become popular and the resultant lack of fortune, or worse, negative cashflow.
Prior to the 60's there was a lot of raw deals but after that period artists sign up and the thing they sign is a contract. Any artist signing a bad record deal now after all of the history, deserves what they sign.
I'm not saying artists haven't been exploited or taken advantage of. There's been alot of that on both sides but it's only after the returns on investent have been calculated that we know who took advantage of whom. The artist that becomes succesful and famous due to talent and excellent promotion took advantage of the record company, the act that is not successful takes advantage of whatever sales did get generate by the "loser" recording act.
Artists like madonna Prince & John Fogerty etc have had well publicised battles with their record companies, and John Fogerty certainly got royally, and indisputably screwed. I must point out that it was only through the altruism of a record company that the unscrewing of John Fogerty took place.
Even an artist like Prince (who I only like about 10 songs from his entire catalog)made a ton of cash from his record deal but later balked at his contract when he decided he did not like the cut he got AFTER the record company made him famous.
How many super star artists are there right now without major record label backing?
None!
Even Ingrid Michaelson and Colbie Callait had to get picked up by a major label to recieve any real financial success. The money they are fronted is fronted based on the likelihood that they will bring in the amount fronted "and THEN some".
Yes production costs have to be paid back out of profits from sales and less popular artists are going to sometime end up upside down in the end finacially, but who's fault is that, the artist who had an overinflated view of their own talent and future popularity? The reocrd company that believed in their potential, but still has to cover their own ass for that top flight "in-demand" producer, or the consumer who was not willing to pay for that first hit single? Or god forbid that first album?
Without huge so called"greedy" record companies their would be no Notorious B.I.G. ---Rolling Stones ----Jack Johnson--Dave Matthews BEATLES, Michael Jackson Jackson 5 Osmonds, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Jurrassic 5, Nickelback, or Daughtry. name a fincanically super sucessful music recording act and you'll find an army of A&R people propping them up, and more than once a promising acts fortunes were lost due to lack of backing and promotion.
A lot of you guys are totally CLUELESS about the crazy money involved in launching music careers and how costly it really is for record companies to do what they do.
It doesn't all go to greedy lawyers with gold plated spinners on their Bently's, Bugatti's and Beamers.
The total outright collapse of the recording studio system will not be good for "shared musical culture" in the U.S. or worldwide. You narrowminded leeches that want to criticize the huge amount of money earned by CEO's and recording artists and movie producers try ponying up the money to produce just ONE QUALITY RECORDING one measley song, 5 minutes of a qulatiy movie. hah you have no talent for such things, so you can't even begin to CREATE, or FUND a creation or PROMOTE a creation.
So shut up about things you have not authority to comment on. You're worse that a corrupt politician. And least those bastards can affect some good for somebody. You're constant drum beat of wishing the collapse of the music and movie companies is annoying and pathetic.
You will inevitably help destroy the one thing that gives your otherwise empty lives any meaning or purpose at all. You're like a virus that eventually kiss it's host. The sad thing is, you don't even know it. You're pathetically ACCIDENTALLY suicidal.
The other thing that is laughable is how you fault the music and movie industry for trying to do everythinh it can to protect itself and destroy those who are ruthlessly trying to destroy them.
Again my comments are not directed to "fair use" copiers, only pirates with no sense of "fair play".
That's not how it works and you know it, the majority will always buy those that do not buy can't all be lumped into 1 category. It comes down to wanting to make a profit off CP/IP if you are not licensed to do it you are pirating if you are merely shearing,giving or merely "distributing" you are not doing anything wrong. The media mafia has to learn their place in the world and not think they are the world....
|
|
mikecUSA
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2009 @ 12:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Zippy.
If A is file sharing and B is product producer spending money to bring the product to market and C is people not buying it and D is the producer deciding it is no longer worth it to produce certain artists, movies or games E = a derth of future entertainment for consumers, legal consumers and illegal consumers (ie: thieves).
If you support thievery or are even guilty of it yourself, don't try and sit there in grand Orwellian doublespeak and try to tell me file sharing of copyrighted material is okay and not wrong. if you honestly bellieve that you are part of a much bigger probelm. Brainwashing coupled with rhtetorical dishonesty bred by your schooling and whatever value system your parents have passed on to you that you either adopted or failed to adopt. WhAtever the case fits, you are not on a very objective or clear thinking path if you think illegal file sharing is not wrong. IF all the "doomsday scenarios" from financial to political to religious come true it will be because of all the garden variety moral decay of individuals that look at life the way you do and call it normal right and good.
This whole file sharing thing is getting rediculous. IT's suicidal in an entertainment/creativity paradigm way.
Piracy will kill gaming/movies/music of it's abundancy and then what will left to fielshare? Nothing all that good, that's for sure.
No wonder the legal penalties for this stuff is getting so catastrauphic. It's the fault of irresponsible short-sighted, selfish and greedy FILEShARERS. You guys have it all upsdie down and backwards. Crooks are stupid. Even the ones that think they're clever, like the code crackers, are inadvertanly ruining "fair use" for not thinking of "fair play" economics.
It's like the Soviet style of govenrment and economics where every one ended up bancrupt or the ouot of control greedy wall street hedge fund crooks and ponzi schemers. Fielsharers Seig Heil! Seif Fiel!
That's what you idiots are causing. Unintended consequences will be a 1984 and Farenheit 451 type of internet. Illegal fielsharing on the scale it is now done will be stopped, but the internet that is being transformed will be less free and less fun and it will al lbe the fault of the self deluded feil sharers that didn't want to show restraint and help support an economic model where everyone benefited. "Fair Use" has been the first casaulty. For that I HATE all cheating fielsharers that have robbed me of my honest right to "fair use" due to their selfishness and lack of self restraint.
|
Moderator
|
22. November 2009 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
Again this whole 'blame the filesharers for the music and movie industries so-called financial woes' is ridiculous. http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_jump.cfm/816333/4932797
As to 1984 type consequences being due to filesharing, you really need to do some research, that twisted 'elitist' mentality comes from those people who think of the general public as being unnecessary, they've had their plans for us all mapped out for decades, our fate will categorically be due to their predefined plans, not due to piracy/filesharing/whatever.
I will agree with you on the Wall Street crooks though.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. November 2009 @ 12:38
|
|
mikecUSA
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2009 @ 12:48 |
Link to this message
|
I agree there are elitists, and they don't stay elitists by thinking we don't count. The things we matter to them about are things we're willing to spend our money on, things we're willing to do for money and we give them ourselves to control, by who we bvote for and even when we don't vote at all.
Now, I wish we all lived in a world where we all got what we wanted and didn't need any money but that will NEVER happen. It's just not realistic.
So money is the conduit to all that we want and don't want. Never forget for a second that we don't matter to the elites. We do.
Even they don't want to live in a world where only them and their type exist.
They need us to give life its "color" and meaning--their existence would be menaingless without us and ours would be less interesting without them too.
It really is quite ingenius when viewed long term and thoroughly.
I'm a "fair use" guy living in a quickly becoming non-fair use world. I don't like it.
I was happier before when a Sony would fight in court for the right of consumers to own a Betamax Video recorder and time shift TV shows and rental movies.
But I will continue to buy movies I like and create backups for myself. I know that's not allowed but I bought the g-d movie, I will make a backup as long as its possible. I will just not feilshare. Feilsharing copyrighted material is wrong. If someone wants a copy of something they should buy it legally.
Michael Cowles
Springfield Virginia USA
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2009 @ 12:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2009 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
mikecUSA
Lovely use of strawmen there, keep it up big biz will hire you as a shill someday.
|
|
mikecUSA
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2009 @ 18:02 |
Link to this message
|
quotes from the article that you reference:
"downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales.
"We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said. "
"That's just human nature."
'nuff said.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. November 2009 @ 18:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
quotes from the article that you reference:
"downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales.
"We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said. "
"That's just human nature."
'nuff said.
Yes you are just saying because it is there they shared it..... downloading is what it is friends shearing crap across a city block or building on a greater scale. People still consume regularly and with this will assist them in thinning out the dieing and stagnating parts of the industry to keep it healthy.
|
Member
|
23. November 2009 @ 00:55 |
Link to this message
|
Mike you sound like your actually employed as a spokesman, perhaps a lawyer noting your word usage, or should I say lack of word usage.
Let me ask you this..........
What is the average age of a file sharer? (not the people that burn and turn)copy and sell))
If I had to take a guess.......15-30??
High schoolers, collage, and up and comers. Where money that is made by these people is NOT going to go to music.
I agree with you in the fact that musicians wouldn't be where they are had it not been for the labels. But is it proper to persecut the ones that are downloading their music and advertising it for them? Especially for the amounts that they are?
Most companies over the last 1/2 centuray have had to restructure their companies to keep up with the times. But the music industry has not.
"It's a formula that's worked for every major artist since the mid 60's."
Sounds like their passing the blame for their own mistakes.
Just my thoughts
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. November 2009 @ 01:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lawndog:
Mike you sound like your actually employed as a spokesman, perhaps a lawyer noting your word usage, or should I say lack of word usage.
Let me ask you this..........
What is the average age of a file sharer? (not the people that burn and turn)copy and sell))
If I had to take a guess.......15-30??
High schoolers, collage, and up and comers. Where money that is made by these people is NOT going to go to music.
I agree with you in the fact that musicians wouldn't be where they are had it not been for the labels. But is it proper to persecut the ones that are downloading their music and advertising it for them? Especially for the amounts that they are?
Most companies over the last 1/2 centuray have had to restructure their companies to keep up with the times. But the music industry has not.
"It's a formula that's worked for every major artist since the mid 60's."
Sounds like their passing the blame for their own mistakes.
Just my thoughts
Music....film.. media in general is stuck in the mud.....
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. November 2009 @ 01:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
quotes from the article that you reference:
"downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales.
"We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said. "
"That's just human nature."
'nuff said.
What's your point ??
The point of me linking the article is file sharers are the ones who BUY the most music,it's A fact from all other studies done over the years all draw the same conclusion.
Drop in cd sales..lol..of coarse can't play a cd on an ipod or zune can ya,there maybe a drop in cd sales there is also an omitted increase on online purchases,don't see that mentioned often by the RIAA how convenient,CD'Ss are nothing more than yesterdays vinyl records it's a dying media,well sort of apparently there's a resurgence in vinyl being bought
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...ll-1812776.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. November 2009 @ 01:33
|
Member
|
23. November 2009 @ 09:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Oh Burn
|
|
mikecUSA
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. November 2009 @ 10:11 |
Link to this message
|
The article quoted give lip service to the idea that downloaders buy "more music".
This is supposedly stated by the downloaders themselves.
"it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales. "
Most of the downloaders, MOST, don't pay for anything. What's the difference between a ripped CD at Flac or Mp3 320 kBIT, or a torrent of an entire catalog of an artist at FLAC or 320kbit Mp3?
No difference. SO what's really going on is some people will buy a CD to put on a shelf these are "collectors".
But the majority of downloaders do not behave this way.
In reference to me being a Lawyer or an industry shill.
No, I am a 48 year old mobile DJ that works in Bars and Private functions and have been doing that for 30 years.
I buy my music legally and most of what I play comes from a music service I pay for that are for promotional purpses EXPLICITLY, where the artist is paid, the record company is paid and the distributor is paid.
Performance rights IE: ASCAP and BMI fees are paid by the venue in which I find myself.
If I sound like an industry shill or a little like a lawyer it is only because I've been dealing with this for years.
The majority fo my competitors do not use legal music collections, adn they undercut me by charging less because they don't have the same expenses that I have.
I can relate to the damage caused to anyone dependent on the music industry and how they are hurt by people acquiring their music collection without paying for it.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
mikecUSA
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. November 2009 @ 10:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
So anyway,
The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion.
The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenaon all happening at the smae time, true megastars will become fewere and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We''l all be less better off as a result.
|
