During Garth Brook's "campaign" against used CD's, there was some talk of trying to get a cut of the used revenue back to the labels and / or the publishers. Garth's supposed bigger concern was that the writer's were getting chumped on used sales, which is not untrue, but our copyright doesn't provide a way to remedy that. I believe in the countries that had record rental laws, there was a payment back to the publisher, not the label. I only saw mention of it a couple of times and it might have been in some trade publication, Hits or Billboard The labels did make some moves that ended up shutting out some independents from buying direct, but that had more to do with not wanting to deal with smaller accounts.
Those copy protection schemes, as well as the introduction of enhanced CD with added multimedia content and the like, were the opposite of the companies trying to abandon the CD format. They were efforts by the companies -- by sticks (DRM) and carrots (enhanced CD) -- to protect and preserve the format in the face of digital piracy. Everyone seems to think that music as a service is more lucrative for record companies than selling packaged goods, but that hasn't proven to be the case yet. Music industry revenue is still down 30% ish from its peak in 1999 even after years of paid streaming growth. And half of that money is going to the streaming companies. In the 1990s, when I was in what we then called the "new media" business, I did some consulting work for a friend at a major label trying to rethink the division he controlled for the internet age. Believe me, no one at the label was welcoming the downfall of the CD. Quite the opposite actually. In fact, years later, around 2016 or 2017 when paid streaming was finally taking off and recorded music industry revenue started growing again after 15 years of decline, I had a different friend at another major label tell me that the attitude around the company was like it was a "stay of execution," not like their dreams had finally come true.
Yes, I kind of said that in my post: Record companies may not be there just yet in terms of overall revenue from streaming, and maybe that explains why they still make certain titles available on CD, but I think the advantage of streaming for them over physical media is clear - a steady revenue stream vs. sporadic one-time sales. No, I don't believe that they'd have wanted CDs to go away back then, when the format was probably at its peak.
They get a steady revenue stream from their whole catalog across all the platforms but they got that from new and catalog sales too and it's still the biggest new hits and hit makers that are the big money makers in streaming since streaming pays out on a pro rata basis -- one stream is not worth one stream but worth the percent all streams angiven song captures in a month. So they still need to produce new blockbusters. Plus, with the time value of money, banking more money up front is usually better financially.
Another way of protecting/limiting the spread of pirated material from CDs was to include a digital watermark on a lot of the promo discs which were handed out. So if the contents were uploaded to a filesharing site or otherwise distributed, they were supposed to be able to track which actual copy it was and who that would have originally been sent to. But then most promo CDs end up given away/sold to used stores so how would that work anyway. EG.
They were probably only concerned with who the discs were originally meant for. If you or I got hold of one of those and uploaded it to the net, I think the person, store, radio station, etc. that originally received it is who would be held accountable. That was my understanding. But come to think of it, I've never heard of any legal consequences happening to anyone as a result of that. Which doesn't mean that never happened, of course. But maybe rather than sue the original recipient, the labels simply stopped servicing them with promos instead?
I used to be on one of the majors' distribution lists for promos. In addition to aural watermarking, I also received multiple advance CDs with my name and information printed not only on the packaging, but on the disc face itself, too. Even though I thought it highly unlikely that anything would ever happen, it meant I never sold or even donated those items - too paranoid about future consequences! Maybe someday they'll be worth money - I mean, they're literally unique. No other copy in existence has my name and info on it...
Those watermarks were only on early advances that went out to label personnel, radio staff and retail buyers. The vast majority of promo's did not have anything like that on them. The funny thing about all that security to keep new releases from leaking, including having cd's in sealed players that had to be listened to w/ label personnel present; a lot of the leaks from from workers at the disc manufacturing facilities. The Man Who Broke the Music Business
The only merchandise at the BB s near me are TVs and a few washing machine. No audio equipment at all.
Yeah BB's been useless music-wise for a long time. To think I used to buy classical and some Tangerine Dream-related CDs there once upon a time... BB could almost compete with some smaller music stores. Regards, Dave
That's very true. I remember buying The Fall, Brian Jonestown Massacre, The Damned, Buzzcocks and Paul Westerberg among many others there at one time....almost unthinkable when you walk into that store now.
Let me fill out a few more details, as I'm not really concerned about sharing more since the writing is on the wall. To me, if feels like two-fold, part of it is taking the easy, somewhat more lucrative role for themselves, some of it is the conspiracy theory to do away with CD. CD licenses generally ran between $2500-$3000 for the first 1000 units. LP licenses generally ran $4000-$4600 per first 1000 units. This is on the low end. For other majors, you can tack another $1000+ onto those numbers. Note that this is only for the master license, not publishing or anything pertaining to the manufacturing. I shared some of the higher end numbers with a UK label and they were in shock. The other thing I'm guessing is that since bonus tracks for CD requires additional research, they decided to take the easy road and go with the higher fees of vinyl with less research due to no bonus tracks, whatever's easiest and most beneficial to them, the goals of the licensee are of no concern. Note that I also mentioned if a third party hasn't requested vinyl, they continued getting CD clearances. By wiping out all of my CD requests and keeping only the vinyl, it confirms that it was primarily a money move and there was no concern about f*^&ing me over. They're also not looking at the bigger picture. I send in my six-month sales reports that include additional royalties due for anything that has exhausted the advances, so when they're getting 5-figure payments from me, my sales report clearly shows what is selling and constitutes that additional amount. It's often a mix of CD and LP but more often than not, it's CD that has exhausted the advance and has moved into second and third pressings, so then that initial advance is being double and tripled. They don't seem to be absorbing that. And truthfully, I really don't think anyone's looking or analyzing these sales reports in detail to see what format is selling, or if they are then they are in fact making a deliberate effort to reduce CD sales by removing all of my CD requests. They aren't going to tell anyone on the outside what their backdoor goal is but the details we have offers plenty of room for speculation. But they're plan backfired because by keeping only my lower selling, higher priced vinyl requests, they pretty much lost a client. I can't be a vinyl-only label, it's far, far too risky and the sales just aren't there for most titles. Now, if the CD counterparts were part of the equation then it would guarantee more sales and keep the business financially feasible. As it stands, with the genre my label focuses on and the fickle nature of the vinyl buying public, this isn't going to work for me.
When does the resale of a used item ever pay the original maker again? I'm generally an IP/creator-rights radical, but have never understood this claim.
I never had one. I'm not even sure if they made it to market, but I think the idea was for DVD's rather than CD's. They'd buy the DVD at a much discounted price, but every time you played it you would be charged.
It's one of the saddest things I've seen on here, people collecting all the different variants, only for more to come out, being rinsed of their hard earned, preyed on. I get the feeling they are not done yet, either.
No, other than having to buying a new license or subscription on software or something like that, which includes a aspect of service. I have some sympathy to them, but it would not be workable to do that.
how is this any different than the 36 versions of synchronicity LP from the police, or any other bands that have multiple releases, and reissues. this is nothing new, and isn't going away anytime soon. its a very old practice, and so what. let collectors collect, thats what we do. i don't get these ones, but i have 10+ and more simple minds new gold dream, sparkle in the rain, tears for fears - songs from the big chair, duran duran - rio, abc, depeche mode, flock of seagulls, human league - dare, kraftwerk - computer world, etc etc. later || | | || | | ne gative 1
Lots of news today about the sales of Taylor Swift, and as usual all of the hype is about vinyl. Some articles make it tough to distinguish between physical sales and "equivalent" streaming sales. Anyway, it appears that physical sales thus far are around 1.6 million, with 700,000 of those being vinyl. How much of the rest are CD? It's impossible to know because NONE OF THE ARTICLES INCLUDE THAT INFO. This seems like an intentional omission to me. Here's just one of many articles you can find: Taylor Swift's 'The Tortured Poets Department' Hits 1.6M US Sales, Sets Spotify On Fire With Over 300M Streams - Spotify Technology (NYSE:SPOT), Universal Music Group (OTC:UMGNF) - Benzinga
If physical sales are 1.6 million, and 700,000 of those are vinyl, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the remaining 900,000 likely aren't all cassettes.
Exactly! The vast majority are probably CD, which would also make this the biggest week for CD sales in a long time. But where are the headlines about that?
In today's market, I wouldn't assume how little cassette sales are. I consider their revival nuts, especially since no one's car has a player, but it seems to be a Thing. I don't know HOW big Thing tho, so the stories SHOULD specify.
I don't think Bezinga counts as a major media company. But of course the story is a trade story originating with Billboard and Luminate --- Taylor Swift's 'Tortured Poets Department': Records Broken (billboard.com) about biggest vinyl sales week in the "modern era" -- since Luminate (nee Soundscan) started tracking in 1991. It's definitely not the biggest CD sales week in 33 years, so, not really any big or even just "Hey Maude" story there.
Meh, CD sales appear to be very much on par with vinyl, which doesn't reinforce the "vinyl is selling more than CD" narrative. And I'd guess if you factor in international markets, the Taylor CD is outselling vinyl by a wide margin, as has happened with several other big name albums in recent years, but the headlines never mention it.
