One of the largest music companies in the world, BMI, has posted record profits for the 2004 fiscal year despite piracy and fair use. BMI reported revenues of $673 million, an increase of $43 million (6.7%) over the prior year. Out of this figure, BMI generated royalties of more than $573 million for its songwriters, composers and music publishers, an increase of $40 million (7.5%) over the prior year. CEO Frances W. Preston said both the revenue and royalty distributions are the biggest in the company’s history.
This is strange, when groups like the RIAA are claiming that because of piracy, artists are losing out. Of course, we all know the mass piracy results in a loss of revenue but are the figures we hear greatly exaggerated? Could it be that people would prefer the artist get all the money they pay for their music, than a label taking most of it? We are told on a regular basis that piracy is destroying the industry, but BMI have seen a steady increase of about 9% every year over the last 10 years.
Now that fair use is also under attack, you really have to question on what grounds it's under attack. Why do BMI have no problems despite P2P piracy and fair use? It would seem that the new proposed penalties for P2P piracy are getting more unfair by the day.
Sources:
Arstechnica
BMI.com
Now that fair use is also under attack, you really have to question on what grounds it's under attack. Why do BMI have no problems despite P2P piracy and fair use? It would seem that the new proposed penalties for P2P piracy are getting more unfair by the day.
Sources:
Arstechnica
BMI.com
