Steve Albini Explains Why Royalties Don't Make Sense
from the get-paid-for-your-work dept
Beyond being a world famous musician, engineer, producer and journalist, Steve Albini has long been pretty outspoken about the music business itself -- and while I don't always agree with him, I appreciate that he speaks his mind and often presents his arguments in ways that make me think and reconsider some of my own positions. herodotus points us to the news of some comments Albini recently made at a conference about the music business, with a great quote about the focus of so many on royalties:"Royalties are a means to pay producers in the future -- and in perpetuity -- based on record sales," said Albini, who is also a music journalist. "If a band does a show, blows a whole bunch of minds and a bunch of people become fans and go out and buy millions of records, the producer gets paid. I think that's ethically unsustainable.I'm guessing that we'll get a fair amount of disagreement in the comments, but I think it's a point worth considering. So many creative industries get really hung up on royalties and collective licensing and other aspects -- when those are basically lottery tickets, relying very much on what other people do, not on the work you actually do. And it leads to this entitlement mentality that we see all the time, where certain content creators feel they need to get paid every time their content is used -- even if they didn't do any additional work on it. This is what all the ongoing legal battles about collective licensing and royalty rates are about. This is what the Hollywood writers' strike from a few years ago were about. They're ongoing attempts to keep getting paid over and over again for one thing you did in the past. Most jobs don't work that way -- and that's the point that Albini is making.
"I don't think you should pay a doctor extra because a patient doesn't die. I think the doctor should be busting his ass for every patient. I don't think I should get paid for someone else's success."
Now, some will argue, of course, that the entertainment industry is "different," because it involves more speculation: no one knows if the content you create will be a hit, so the concept of royalties is a way to deal with that. But that assumes a rather static market, and pays little attention to the entitlement mentality that it creates. If you have a hit, charge more for future work -- rather than focusing so much on getting paid over and over and over again just for that one piece of work you did in the past.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, royalties, steve albini
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good luck selling this
I've despaired of trying to convince these people that they're better off getting a little more upfront. Probably because Vancouver/New Zealand/etc. are giving "Hollywood" a run for their money. Nebulous royalties are the ultimate carrot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if millions of people are blown away because of the awesome production of a band's CD and go out and buy millions of tickets to the band's live shows. The producer doesn't get paid a bit from those ticket sales. Is that ethically sustainable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if an ad agency's ad is used to start advertising the CD and/or concert, and this dramatically boosts sales?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Awesome Production"
The first thing that crossed my mind was that it seems pretty unlikely that a well-produced album (I know, "LP" made that term obsolete) would translate into ticket and t-shirt sales. The production/packaging/engineering/etc. should be invisible (inaudible?) for the most part. Only bad production should be noticeable , right?
And then I thought of pop music, and auto-tune and DSP and digital editing and companding . . . And I thought, maybe you're right. Maybe a band could be so well produced that what sounds like crap on the studio monitor comes out a glorious polished turd of a record. And millions of people buy tickets to a completely unlistenable -- or lip sync'ed -- concert.
In that case, I suppose you would be right. And it wouldn't be sustainable: ethically, practically or any way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Awesome Production"
Thanks for explaining my comment better than I did. I was thinking about those boy bands from the 90s, any blonde female singer who had hits prior to reaching the age of 18, and any "musician" signed to Disney's label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Precisely.
Royalty owners (of which there are many, many, more than lottery winners) are like stock holders, property owners, company owners, or any other kind of asset holders who (sometimes) make money with minimal to no additional work after the initial expenditure.
If you are against royalties on their very principle, so too should you be just as vehemently opposed to the very idea of an "appreciating asset" or ANY financial arrangement that is not salaried, hourly, or for-hire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh!
Well, I've replied. Now kindly go look up the difference between "physical" and "virtual" before commenting again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh!
The issue is what musicians have the RIGHT to do and what Only in IP do people think that if they don't like the business model, they can steal it.
You and I have had this discussion, and you know, quite well I should add, that infringement is not stealing. As someone intimately familiar with the issues, I find it odd that you would make this argument.
Both models work and are fine.
But are they sustainable? Hence the question in the post.
And if a musician prefers to take less risk and get paid up front . . . that's great, too. Both models can coexist - the problem I have is when people say "let me take the content for free because I don't like the business model" - it's no different than stealing a car because you think BMW is charging too much.
But can they really coexist over the long haul? That's the question that's being asked.
And, you know damn well that the situations being discussed are entirely different. Stealing a car means one less car.
What if, instead, you could easily make a copy of a car? What's your position then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh!
Car companies would be screwed. Service companies would prosper.
It may be the case that the service side of the industry could adapt to make up for the loss in sales but that eventuality is by no means apparent.
And unfortunately, this sort of scenario is not very congruous to most forms of IP, that require no service, mechanical, technical, or otherwise.
Which is why examples like Red Hat are such red herrings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh!
BMW's are getting stolen cause they charge to much. What exactly is your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh!
Because Only in IP do people assert the right to stop their customers doing what they like with their legally purchased goods.
If you were to abolish copyright law (for new works) then there would still be nothing to stop those who wished to continue in the old model from attempting to use contract law to enforce their "rights". The probalem they would face however is that they would have to negotiate the deal with their customers (against a background of various other laws designed to ensure that contracts have fair terms and conditions). I suspect that in today's marketplace most consumers would be reluctant to sign up to the default T's and C's as currently laid out by copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i disagree
the **AA gotta get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A great producer needs no royalities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If doctors were rewarded based on success (i.e. patient survival) maybe campaigns like the "100 000 lives" campaign and the more recent "5 million lives" campaign would not be necessary!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royalties
Some artists come in to the studio and all they want is a recorded album and they pay per album, per song, or sometimes per hour. After i'm paid, that is the end of the contract. They have their artwork which, they performed, combined with my service(mixing, mastering, providing mics, etc.) which they paid for in full.
Other case: i'm out and about in a piano bar, night club, or concert (all small, local venues) and hear a real ARTIST who has potential, i will invite them to the studio and provide everything it takes to get an album or ep created. while in this process, i send singles to bar/club/venue owners and let them know a new talented artist is around. This gets the musician larger gigs (more $) as well as more frequent gigs (more $). So, i charge a royalty fee for actually producing the artist.
my reasoning, if i had not stepped in and produced the artist and made him/her more available to the public, he/she would still be struggling to get started.
(i only have royalty agreements (between the artist and i) dealing with certain sized venues (if i set up the gig) and with record sales (such as iTunes).
Can an artist do without a producer. YES, but some do not possess the will-power or know-how.
sorry this was so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Work for hire is fine with me (and what Tom The Toe said)
Almost all salaried employees and consultants are "work for hire." Having your name attached to a job (producer of record, software product, website) is optional, and so is arranging "points" (royalties, stock options) in lieu of better up-front pay.
It is risky when some startup or other project offers you NO salary or up-front pay in exchange for lots of (potentially worthless) stock or future royalty (10% of zero dollars)
The "royalty" gamble should be the exception, and the norm should be good up-front pay with your role/title and choice of name - none/pseudonym/real name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an engineer, he is the absolute opposite of self-important jerks like Rick Rubin.
I also find it interesting that he is perfectly willing to embrace the internet, even though he doesn't like digital audio as a recording medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the company I work for goes public and I get rich, is that a problem for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
royalties are like patents
what about books? if i write a book, should my editor not receive compensation for effectively helping to craft it? the piece could not have been so without the editor. if producers don't matter so much...then why do big name bands notorious stick with some, and fire others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: royalties are like patents
On second thought, forget it. Enjoy your "live off it forever" kick back fantasy. I can't even make sense of your "if I" "should my editor not receive" "could not" "why... fire others?" bit of speculative free dis-sociation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: royalties are like patents
all i'm saying, badly i suppose, is that if there's collaboration, the outcome is a result of that—some will have had more responsibility than others, in most cases, but all are deserving of some proportional reward for success. that could mean royalties, that could mean stock options...different industries have their respective models. but in this case, as long as the royalty system is in place, and the producer's input warrants it (subjective in and of itself), it seems that cutting them out of the cash loop--for that specific effort--is not ethical.
what if the reason people went to see a band in the first place is because a good producer made a crap band sound good, and one track got circulated or placed into rotation...and that blew their minds, so they bought concert tickets, and that was the catalyst that made the band famous enough to yield royalties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: royalties are like patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Context
Touring band members and musicians who collaborate on the songs and deserve credit -- are different from hired-gun producers and musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
open source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I tend to agree in theory.
One thing that sometimes gets neglected in these discussions is the fact that musical art is not consumed in a rational or predictable fashion. Whether or not someone has a hit or becomes a celebrity of any sort is infinitely fortuitous. A short look at the career of Alex Chilton is all that is needed to confirm this. And I have to say that I really don't think that it was a bad thing that 'That 70's Show' had to pay him royalties every time they aired. It was a small recompense for a disastrously mismanaged career.
The problem is that the way musical royalties are administered is needlessly complex, involving a handful of agencies that have very little competition, and therefore very little inducement to improve the quality of their services. They're like the IRS: huge, clunky machines that no one quite understands or knows how to fix.
All of which has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion of Engineers and Producers getting royalties along with the musicians. Engineers and producers are paid for their work, paid out out of the advance given to the artist, which the latter has to pay back to the label out of 'their share' of the proceeds from unit sales. They make their money whether the artists 'recoup' or not. They take no financial risks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Erm, that's kind of the argument. Artists and labels are often "playing the lottery" by taking/paying advances in the hope that there's a greater sum of money on the horizon. Most major label artists never recoup their advance, let alone make a profit afterwards. It's their own pay structure that causes the risks, because they hope to hit the jackpot later on.
In no other field than entertainment does this kind of payment happen. Everybody else gets paid for the work they do, when they do it. Why not musicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It was a small recompense for a disastrously mismanaged career."
So? I know of sportsmen who had similar careers, but they don't get paid unless they play. I know programmers who didn't go where they should have done, but still have to code for a living. I know of middle managers for corporations who managed to torpedo their own careers, but they still have to turn up at the office. Why can Chilton just sit on his laurels and collect money for work he did a few years ago when others have to earn their pay days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Alex Chilton passed away on March 17, 2010.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, the point stands. A lot of other people passed away on that day as well, and most of their families will not be receiving royalty cheques for work that person did while alive. That Chilton happened to stand in front of a camera for a living instead of working in an office or factory should not give him special status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'If you have a hit, charge more for future work'
When everyone is putting their time and effort into a project that may yield no results whatsoever, creating a 'royalty split' where the producer 'gets some of the action' is a simple way of just sharing revenue.
Albini is coming from his own 'producer for hire' angle, which is somewhat privileged. If he were to become the 'fifth beatle' on a project, with no money involved for anyone unless the project actually took of, he'd be taking some percentage or split of the product, which is fine.
He's talking in broad strokes, and all productions are different, so I find it strange that he's doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Historically, musicians had no other choice. It's not like the labels offered them various options. If you wanted to record in a decent studio and get a decent distribution deal, you accepted the ridiculous wheel of fortune payment system and hoped for the best.
"In no other field than entertainment does this kind of payment happen. Everybody else gets paid for the work they do, when they do it. Why not musicians?"
In the past, again, they had no choice. Today they do. Hooray.
"So? I know of sportsmen who had similar careers, but they don't get paid unless they play. I know programmers who didn't go where they should have done, but still have to code for a living. I know of middle managers for corporations who managed to torpedo their own careers, but they still have to turn up at the office. Why can Chilton just sit on his laurels and collect money for work he did a few years ago when others have to earn their pay days?"
I think that many people have no concept whatever of the extreme fortuitousness of being a musician. It's not like there is anything like a reasonable work to reward ratio. You can be the hardest working band in the world: touring incessantly, writing constantly, sleeping in the back of a van and doing everything in your power to promote yourself and economize, and still end up with nothing at the end of it.
It's not a simple matter of 'if you are good, they will come'. Look at e.g. the Melvins: a seminal band to the point of being almost legendary; they influenced, worked with, and recorded with everyone from Tool to Nirvana, and yet when they came to my city 6 years back about 10 people showed up to see them. The next time they came through town, you couldn't find a place to stand.
This sort of thing is true no matter who you are and no matter how hard you work. It's a total crap shoot.
Finally, let me get this straight, are you saying that Alex Chilton shouldn't have gotten paid when That 70s Show used his song as their theme song? Should he just have been happy about the free advertising? Even though hardly anyone knew that he wrote the song?
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the same sort of parasitic bullshit that Masnick believes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The missing ingredients
1) What is the criterion for allowing some workers to collect secondary income for the rest of their lives for what they did once?
At present it seems to be arbitrary - and largely based on historical accidents stemming from the Staioners Company
2) Is it morally acceptable to collect secondary income for the rest of their lives for what you did once?
My reading of what most religious and secular moralists said about "usury" in the period up to about 1200 AD would have applied to copyright too - if it had existed then.
3) Can you justify the costs and collateral damage to other industries and activities caused by futile attempts to enforce copyright law outside the large scale commercial sphere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The missing ingredients
You can only ask this question once you've given up work bonuses, paid vacation, and sold any assets you might currently have.
Until then you're a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Albini and Royalties Quote
However there are other types of producers. Some, like myself, who contribute more than a small amount of musical content and sometimes even more in other areas in establishing an artist's recorded identity.
I am not here to argue which of these types of producers is the more "creative". But in the case of the latter type they are certainly correct in obtaining royalties on a pro rata basis with the band members who they are working with.
Using Steve's analogy the band should also share a percentage of their live revenues, merchandising, etc. when they become more successful due to the creative production work of a producer who is collaborating with them on a CD that increases their fan base and profile. A bit of a flaw here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like the server at a restaurant that needs the tips to pay the bills.
Also, like the server, I can't possibly work for as long (in such a high stress job) as the average office worker.
An official session runs 10 hours per day, often going late. Being exposed to very loud sounds, managing a group of artists, and dealing with a host of technical issues while trying to make sure everything sounds good, is draining to say the least.
A small indie record usually means about 80 hour of work crammed into a week. I'll often stay late to edit all the drums, and tune the bad singing. The expectation on the producer is very high. A lot of bands today come to the studio unable to play their songs. They count on the producer to transform them into something great, a time-consuming and expensive endeavor. If it were simply a matter of hitting the record button, it might be a different story.
Most upcoming producers I know have an incredible work ethic. A good producer friend of mine worked all through last Christmas (editing the drums on a now successful album), while the band was at home eating with their families. The producer is often spending twice as much (or more) time on the project than anyone else.
I do it with the hope to one day be paid back through a good, ongoing relationship with a successful band.
I see no problem with me and the band entering the project as a team. We're both struggling, but together we might be able to get somewhere.
Sure the band has to tour, which is rough, no doubt. But I also have to do a lot work that is unpaid. The producer has to cultivate his image much like a musician.
Besides, no producer is asking for more than the artist can afford. Production points only help a producer if the song or album becomes a really big hit. By then the artist and label can afford to help the producer, so why not?
Albini is obviously in a different situation than most. He may not take royalties, but he can charge around $1000 per day; way more than most struggling bands can afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I realize you don't give a shit, but Alex Chilton didn't stand in front of a camera for a living, he wrote songs.
And the 'special status' you are talking about wasn't chosen by him, but rather forced upon him by the industry that he had to work in. I assure you he would rather have been payed an hourly wage, but that option isn't really open to songwriters.
And you never did answer my question: Should that 70's show have been allowed to use his song without paying for it? And if so, why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: royalties
However, I've worked with producers before who have no vision and are absolutely useless who charge too much upfront and want royalty fees. I've also worked with producers who are brilliant and love the work, love the songs - will work on them for a good fee and not expect royalties... so many variations...
I think these variations can definitely change whether or not royalties are paid to the producer.
If the artist/band themselves are terrible, and the producer makes it sound good - then what's the point of the band? Who put them into the studio, what dumb ass A&R guy brought them in, who authorized it, what retarded producer decided he would produce them? These are the questions I'm asking, who cares about royalties at this stage of the game. When you're making a band/group/artist do something they actually can't, to sound like they don't, then it ceases to be their work and they shouldn't even get royalties on it... it shouldn't even be released...
It's like getting an old rusty car, fixing it up and making it look like the BMW - ethically, you can't sell it - but they do, all the time - ALL THE TIME!
Peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royalities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]