AfterDawn: Tech news

Publicly funded CDs offer an alternative to music label contracts

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 29 Oct 2007 0:52 User comments (11)

Publicly funded CDs offer an alternative to music label contracts Just as in the pre-ecommerce world musicians would often sign with independent labels to finance recording, a new trend is developing that has some bands foregoing traditional financing altogether and raising money on the internet.
Two websites, SellaBand and Slicethepie, offer a musicians a place to gather supporters and financing for recording. Specific goals are set by the services, representing their ideas for how much it realistically costs to have a CD professionally recorded. Site visitors can contribute to a band's efforts for as little as $10. In exchange for this money they get perks ranging from backstage passes to a cut of the resulting CD's profits.

So far eight acts have raised the $50,000 required by Sellaband before money is disbursed. Until patrons, which SellaBand refers to as Believers, have racked up that much, the money stays with the company. Before that time the contributions, known as Parts, can be switched from one artist to another, or withdrawn entirely and returned to the Believer.

Sellaband provides a producer and studio time to funded artists. Believers get Limited edition copies of the resulting CD, with any profits from its sale split between Sellaband, the artist, and all the Believers who helped fund the recording. Three songs from each CD are offered as free downloads from the company's website, and the rest are sold for $0.50 each.

Artists who have made it through the financing process have felt good about the process, although they indicated that it required more one-on-one communication with Believers than the performers were used to. Of course this personal attention to music lovers may prove to be nearly as positive as the opportunity to release a CD.

Source: Reuters

Previous Next  

11 user comments

129.10.2007 1:02

Next up:
The RIAA sues... the public!

229.10.2007 5:25
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by nonoitall:
Next up:
The RIAA sues... the public!
now if the web site decides to give you a taster of the music either streamed or via a download the riaa/soundexchange will require royalties paid even if the band is not signed up to the riaa's royalty collection service and the band will have to pay the riaa to collect their royalties!

the riaa is squeezing as much money out of everyone as it can and the sooner their vampiric, leeching company stops operating, the better.

329.10.2007 6:21

Quote:
now if the web site decides to give you a taster of the music either streamed or via a download the riaa/soundexchange will require royalties paid even if the band is not signed up to the riaa's royalty collection service and the band will have to pay the riaa to collect their royalties!
I hope you're just being sarcastic. There can't be any legal basis for them to do so. Or...?

429.10.2007 6:55
slugfuk
Inactive

Hmmm.. not quite sure about the US situation. Things are better here. Unless you are signed to a major and have a music publishing setup you can give your music away free if you want to.
I think if the RIAA were to try to collect royalties on any freely given music I make and own they had better be prepared for legal action.

There is one way around some of this.. I believe less than 30 seconds of a song is always royalty exempt under "fair use"?? I'm not totally sure about that so be wary.. the shylock riaa may have got the goalposts moved. I do know that a royalty free 45 that a band I was in many years ago released in Canada had a royalty charge added by the riaa on copies sold in the US.. which of course we never saw a brass farthing of.. that means they stole off our fans and stole off us too.. Thieving ********!!
The best reason I can think of for never releasing any music in the states.
People should remember the true independent days of the 60's and 70's.. small local labels making things on a shoestring. In these days of digital distribution and recording technology being as cheap as it is I'm surprised it still isn't as widespread as it should be. Probably something to do with how easy it is to become very rich by releasing some stale samey old crap through a major. It looks like the "reality tv" craze has taken over in music too.. true musicians good and bad don't do it for money, they do it to play music to people (well that's what we did it for anyways.. not for money or fame, both of which eluded us.. wish I could get the $25 that is being touted for a certain 45 on one of the collectors sites.. between us we lost something like $C0.10 on each item)

529.10.2007 9:30
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by BcMester :
Quote:
now if the web site decides to give you a taster of the music either streamed or via a download the riaa/soundexchange will require royalties paid even if the band is not signed up to the riaa's royalty collection service and the band will have to pay the riaa to collect their royalties!
I hope you're just being sarcastic. There can't be any legal basis for them to do so. Or...?

Nope i was being serious the riaa and worse than the mob stealing monies from artists from around the globe with every dirty trick they can use!

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/0335224&from=rss

Originally posted by link:
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"

Originally posted by hyperlink:
The RIAA has secured legal authority to administer a compulsory license that covers all recorded music.

more reading:

RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties

RIAA eyes radio's billions


This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Oct 2007 @ 9:51

629.10.2007 11:18
rstoddard
Inactive

I think that with the RIAA, it's kind of like a Union (a perverted one at that, as the real "workers," the artists, get very little.)

Either you pay the dues or you pay a fee. Every track released in the U.S. has a fee attached if your label is not a member of the RIAA.

The argument with a Union is that you get the benefits, why not pay a fee? This--however--obviously does not apply here (with the changes in technology) and should be changed. There are no "benefits" with belonging to the RIAA.

(If I'm wrong in this--and I'd be ecstatic if I were--please do correct me!)

729.10.2007 13:06
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by rstoddard:


The argument with a Union is that you get the benefits, why not pay a fee? This--however--obviously does not apply here (with the changes in technology) and should be changed. There are no "benefits" with belonging to the RIAA.

(If I'm wrong in this--and I'd be ecstatic if I were--please do correct me!)
The RIAA are SONY, EMI, UNIVERSAL and WARNER GROUP, as it says in my sig.

these are the ppl publishing most of the songs and profiting at both ends from exploiting the artists and the consumer. the way to stop the riaa/mpaa and other drm laden propertarian a$$ hole companies, "sony", being the main culprit of dirty tricks is to boycott all their products!

829.10.2007 15:22

Quote:
the way to stop the riaa/mpaa and other drm laden propertarian a$$ hole companies, "sony", being the main culprit of dirty tricks is to boycott all their products!
I totally agree, that's what I'm doing for quite a time now. The problem is that there are always the masses of sheep who will buy anything with those 4 letters on it, because "that's supposed to be good" (my experience). Unfortunately it will be some time until these people's eyes are opened, if ever. I'm constantly working on that, warning people around me, but they 1) don't understand what's happening, and/or 2) don't even give a f*ck. :(

On topic: just because the mafiaa decided that they have a right to collect money on any artist's behalf, I still doubt that they actually have that right. This would put them on level with governments who decide about taxes we pay. I would really like to know the legal basis of the situation. It's like I'm growing vegetables and selling them on the market, and the union of food retailers decide that I have to pay them a share after every f&cking carrot I sell, just because they have many people who are growing carrots for them. If this is legal then I would like to leave the planet please.

Edit: I'm really interested in this topic because I'm also a musician (with no contract so far, thank god). Does this mean that if I sit here at home, record a couple songs, put them on my website and try to sell them €0.10 a piece to anyone interested, some company who don't have sh1t to do with it can come to me and make me pay real money to them?? I better start taking the guns out guys. It's not funny anymore.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Oct 2007 @ 15:40

929.10.2007 16:26
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by BcMester :


On topic: just because the mafiaa decided that they have a right to collect money on any artist's behalf, I still doubt that they actually have that right. This would put them on level with governments who decide about taxes we pay. I would really like to know the legal basis of the situation. It's like I'm growing vegetables and selling them on the market, and the union of food retailers decide that I have to pay them a share after every f&cking carrot I sell, just because they have many people who are growing carrots for them. If this is legal then I would like to leave the planet please.

I think you can sell via the net without incurring charges but you cant stream without paying the vampires! a good story that hits the nail on the head can be found here >> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/n...wonky-rant-riaa
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Oct 2007 @ 18:07

103.11.2007 6:13

Well, I do not think this is a new concept. This is the way the German band "Einstürzende Neubauten" works for a couple of years already.

116.11.2007 17:11

Online fund raising :P

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive