[seanalltogether]

The crazy thing to me is that the deal is structured more like a loan then an investment, and yet they are still only entitled to 10% of net income. Could you imagine a tech entrepreneur accepting that kind of a deal from a VC?

[markokocic]

Well, tech enterpreneurs are much better with math and scepticism than your average musicians.

If a programmer is able to decipher so called business requirements and find holes there, why shouldn't he check contract for himself?

[tjansen]

I don't think that you should see it as a loan, because AFAIK the band does not need to pay the advance back.

The band sells the right to its music, in exchange for the advance. If the band's income exceeds 1000% of the advance, it will get 10% of the income as an extra bonus. And when the contract ends, the label returns the rights back to the band.

What does the band get? An advance, possibly a bonus, marketing and promotion for the brand, and usually the rights to some other forms of income (concerts, merchandise etc).

[brown9-2]

If the band's income exceeds 1000% of the advance, it will get 10% of the income as an extra bonus.

Isn't this paying the advance back?

[klbarry]

Programming ability has a great deal more economic value than entertainment ability.

[lhnz]

What's the reason behind that statement? Is it because it has more utility to you or that demand/wage is generally higher for a programmer than a musician?

Counter argument: what has more utility than bringing people happiness?

[StavrosK]

How so, given how much money top singers/bands make?

[cageface]

Power law thing. Most musicians make next to nothing whereas the average programmer does ok.

[StavrosK]

Makes sense, thanks.

[tertius]

Compare that to Sergey and all the IPOs. I think you'll see that it's slanted towards programmers.

[mikeash]

The total revenue of RIAA members in 2009 was about $7.7 billion. At their peak around the turn of the century, they were doing a bit under $15 billion. And that is revenue, not profit. The entertainment industry is tiny. Top artists make a lot of money for an individual, but it's only millions, and there aren't a whole lot of them.

That 2009 music industry revenue would pay for, what, 70,000 programmers? And there are a whole lot more programmers than that earning good money.

(Note: I'm only looking at RIAA figures, and ignoring independent artists, so it's understated to a certain extent. However, I believe RIAA revenue still makes up the majority, probably the vast majority, of total music revenue.)

[chadgeidel]

The mind-boggling this is that a billion-dollar industry is bullying a (many?) trillion-dollar industry around. Say what you want about DRM, it's strange to me that software and hardware manufacturers actually put up with it.

[mikeash]

I agree, it's pretty amazing just how far above their weight the entertainment industry punches in that respect.

[tertius]

Not that I'm saying laws are applied correctly.

But I sure am glad that the music industry CAN "bully" an industry far greater in the same way that I am glad that I can (if I had time and money) to do it because of the freedom of litigation.

[mikeash]

The weird thing is that most of the bullying has nothing to do with litigation. DRM pops up all over the place in standards like HDMI, willingly put there by the electronics companies. If they wanted to, they could all go to the entertainment industry and say, "You guys want DRM, but tough luck, we're not building it. If you want to sell your stuff on the next generation of devices, you'll have to work with what we want to build." But they don't, even though in theory they should be able to.

[chadgeidel]

That's fair. Unfortunately the *AA's are writing the laws so they get their way.

Is it at all reasonable they get to force ISPs to enforce their rules without litigation? Is it reasonable to be legally able to charge me $250,000 in the US to circumvent the CSS "encryption" on a DVD?

[StavrosK]

Interesting number, thank you.