14 Dec
2002
14 Dec
'02
4:15 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Wayne M. Smith once stated:
I read Albini's article. The $710,000 number he puts out is "gross proft"
which
is not what the record company makes. The net is much lower.
So you mean that the artist makes even *less* than $4,000?
And you are still defending the RIAA?
While not the music industry, it is well known that you *never* agree to a
percentage of the net in Hollywood (movie industry) but of the *gross* since
*no* movie ever *nets* if the accountants are any good. Even a movie
pulling in thrice what it cost is still considered having lost money (I
suspect it has to pull in ten times the amount before a net profit is
called).
-spc (How pulling in three times the expense can still be considered
loosing money I will never know ... )
It was thus said that the Great Wayne M. Smith
once stated:
>
> > -BZZZTTTT- Wrong answer... the recording industry contracts state that
> > Yes, you can ahve your contract audited, but only with a list of
'approved'
> > auditors, as a matter of fact if you
show your contract to ANYONE you are
> > in violation of the contract.
>
> I don't think that's right. There are restrictions that prevent hiring an
> auditor on a contingency fee basis, and using an auditor who is performing
an
> audit of the same company on behalf of
another artist at the same time. I
have
never
heard of the "approved list" you mention.
According to Steve Albini [1] a band who sells 250,000 albums (not that
bad a showing) will make $710,000 for the record company, and only $4,000
*per band member*. $4,000. Given that an audit can cost anywhere from
$10,000-$100,000 [2], even if the band in question *wanted* an audit, they
aren't going to very well afford one, are they? And there *are*
restrictions on what they can audit [3], but I've yet to find any
restrictions on who can do the auditing.