AfterDawn: News

Despite piracy, BMI posts record year

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

Written by: James Delahunty @ 4 Sep 2004 10:51

• Previous article

• Sony were offered iTunes deal by Apple

• Next article

• Casual gamers forgotten by games industry

• 6 comments

• Toiletman

  I think you meant " Despite Piracy, DMI posts record year"
  
  Most companies are losing profit not because of P2P, but their products. But they're blaming it on P2P, because they don't really like to admit their products are crap.
  
  You really can't fight P2P. You can't fight technology and win. You have to evolve and adapt to it. Companies should start using P2P to assist their business, not go against it.

  Everyone is entitled to their own true opinion. Either respect that or don't.

  4.9.2004 11:00 #1

• Dela

  Yep i edited the title a couple of minutes after I noticed!

  4.9.2004 12:27 #2

• strcruzer

  This really goes back to what I stated previously, the RIAA wants to control all of what we hear and how the artist produces and distributes their wares.
  
  If P2P is around the average recording artist (or one that aspires to be) today can record, produce and distribute their music without the likes of the RIAA members, it's cheaper to do and the artist still owns the work! This FREE platform is what they are afraid of, they lose control of the new artists.
  
  Another point to consider, look at the online music downloads, the prices they charge are ridiculous they are still the same cost as a track on a CD and on top of that they are going to raise the prices, why? To disuade John Q. Public (you) from buying MP3's and turn you back to the old CD distribution model.
  
  Why do I say this you ask? Remember they (RIAA members) more than likely own the distribution channel as well! But they do not own the P2P channel do they? What they can't control they do not want. So they create a campaign to outlaw what they can't control, it is as simple as that.

  8.9.2004 09:17 #3

• Toiletman

  Quote: Another point to consider, look at the online music downloads, the prices they charge are ridiculous they are How is $0.99 a song ridiculous? Hell, even MY lunch money could get me 5 songs a day.
  
  You know, a while back some people were downloading .mp3s because they only wanted "some" songs on the album, and didn't want to spend $20 (Now that's a ridiculous price) on an album. iTunes offered this service and everyone using Macs immediately flocked to the service.
  
  Now you say it's too expensive.... sure, I'm all for the cheaper, but some people are just pushing it too far. For now at least, for now... =)

  Everyone is entitled to their own true opinion. Either respect that or don't.

  8.9.2004 12:15 #4

• 2005

  Nah hes right... what does a kid who has no job do when he loves music, get a job and work 40 hours a week so he can listen to a little ac DC, i think not.
  
  i would say 3 songs for a dollar... think of it like this thats one more dollar they would get from people who download for free when its that cheap. A legal and cheap alternative is what needs to be in the mix.
  

  HP Pavilion 533w
  2.0 ghz (celeron :( )
  512 mb of pc2100 ram
  ATI radeon 9200 256mb
  NEC ND 2510a (1.16)

  8.9.2004 18:38 #5

• SirenSong

  Originally posted by 2005: Nah hes right... what does a kid who has no job do when he loves music, get a job and work 40 hours a week so he can listen to a little ac dc, i think not.
  
  i would say 3 songs for a dollar... think of it like this thats one more dollar they would get from people who download for free when its that cheap. A legal and cheap alternative is what needs to be in the mix.I was a kid who didn't have a job, yet I used my allowance to buy LP's... I'm probably one of the biggest music lovers around, and I managed. Also started working in record stores as a teen.
  
  Must comment though, do you realize when you break down your three songs for a dollar theory, the songwriter barely gets a nickel? It's not fair to those who earn a living songwriting to take food off their family's plates because everyone expects music to be free or practically free. It would be like sitting in a restaurant expecting that steak dinner be complimentary. As if.
  
  I love iTunes as I agree, I'm not always interested in an artists entire CD, and this way I can purchase just what I want. I don't see it as being a rip at all.
  
  BMI, the above organization is not the bad guy either. They charge licensing fees for the public performance of music and return it to the songwriters, composers and publishers. If it were left to the RIAA and such, songwriters would be completely screwed, which is completely wrong.
  
  My .02

  5.9.2007 11:42 #6