4 ms·
It's not the artists receiving that, but the actual label themselves. Perhaps get a bit more clued up rather than attacking labels. They are a business after al
by evertonfuller 14y ago
It's not the artists receiving that, but the actual label themselves. Perhaps get a bit more clued up rather than attacking labels. They are a business after all. Artists do not need to sign with them.
- windsurfer 14y ago> Artists do not need to sign with them. Anymore. People resent record labels for the past, when signing with them was practically the only option, and the terms of the contract were cryptic and frequently misunderstood by signers. When artists were promised 15% royalties, cryptic "breakage" fees and other deductions brought that number closer to 5%, and forced the artist to incur costs such as tours, concerts and marketing, leaving the record labels only responsible to print records.
- evertonfuller 14y agoWho's problem is that though? The artists should have had better legal representation then and made sure they thoroughly understood what they were signing. Not go and complain afterwards.
- duaneb 14y agoSure, doesn't mean the record labels are any less evil for it. They could have made profits without screwing over people who didn't know any better.