About Me 0055: About Making Money

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

The Republican National Committee will soon hold elections to potentially replace its gaffe-prone chairman Michael Steele, and today, FreedomWorks held a forum for those vying for the job. All the candidates present — Steele was conspicuously absent — touted their fundraising ability, but Mike Duncan, a former chairman running for another term, took the opportunity to wax poetic about campaign finance. Despite the recent troubling and unprecedented explosion of money in politics, Duncan called money “the mother’s milk of politics,” and argued, “there is not enough money” in politics:

DUNCAN: Money is the mother’s milk of politics. There is not too much money in politics, there is not enough money. When you consider that we spend $7 billion in this county a year on potato chips. We spend $4 billion, a little over $4 billion, according to the National Retailer Association on Halloween — on costumes and candies.

Watch it:

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, this year’s election saw a flood of money into politics, with corporations, special interests, and wealthy individuals spending like never before. Nearly $4 billion was spent on the 2010 cycle, making it the most expensive midterm in history, with more spent by outside groups this year than during all the midterms since 1990 combined. A disturbingly large portion of this was secret money spent by front groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, which do not have to disclose their donors. This system allows a tiny group of individuals to have an outsize impact on American democracy. For example, in August, an astonishing 91 percent of the millions American Crossroads raised came from just three billionaires. And while the Chamber claims to represent hundreds of thousands of businesses large and small, the vast majority of their funding comes from just 45 mega-corporations.

But it’s not surprising that Duncan would support this flood of special interest money in politics, as Republicans benefited most from secret money, and spent more than Democrats overall. According to a New York Times analysis, eight of the top ten outside political groups were GOP-aligned, including the top four.

However, the American people do not agree with Duncan that there should be more money in politics, especially when it comes to corporate money. A PCCC poll from last week showed that by a double-digit margin, voters would support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and once again restrict corporations from directly spending on elections. Meanwhile, a People for the American Way poll from June found that 85 percent believe that there is too much corporate money in politics. And a poll from the 2008 presidential campaign found that “Americans by 3-1 think too much money is” spent on politics.

State of the indy music industry looks rosy, so why all the doom-and-gloom about music?

Cory Doctorow at 11:30 PM Wednesday, Dec 1, 2010

TuneCore's Jeff Price has a six-part series analyzing the financial state of the music industry from the point of view of an independent artist. Price offers compelling reasons to believe that although the labels are experiencing a severe downturn, artists as a group are earning more than ever, thanks to the Internet.

I have a feeling that the record industry's rejoinder to this would be, yes, more artists are earning some money from their music, and all told, there's more money going to artists than ever before, but there are fewer opportunities for an artist to sign up to a label like ours that controls so much of the distribution channel that we can guarantee large sums of money for these lottery winners.

In other words, the music industry today is much less winner-take-all, with the benefits diffused to a larger pool of artists at the expense of the few who did so well under the old system. This is what I mean when I say a good copyright system is one that encourages the broadest-possible engagement in culture: more music, from more musicians, reaching more people, at more price-points, in more formats. It's a win for free expression and for art, but it's a loss for some artists and the institutions that supported them.

I don't celebrate those losses: it's terrible to think of people who loved and lived for music losing their jobs (most of the people at labels aren't greedy tools deciding to sue 40,000 music fans; greedy tool-dom is confined to a few powerful decisionmakers). It's sad to think of the tiny pool of musicians who did so well taking a loss (though before we weep for them too much, remember that yesterday's winners are well situated to get even richer from merch, performance and licensing, even without the archaic recorded music industry and its shiny bits of plastic).

But copyright's purpose should be to get as much art made and available as possible -- it's not a full-employment scheme for administrators and marketing people and record-store clerks; it's not a lottery that makes millionaires out of a couple of lucky artists. There's nothing wrong with it doing those things, but they aren't why it's there: it's there to fuel expression and art.

The reality is:

* More musicians are making money off their music now then at any point in history.

* The cost of buying music has gotten lower but the amount of money going into the artist's pocket has increased.

* There are more people listening, sharing, buying, monetizing, stealing and engaging with music than at any other point in history.

* There are more ways for an artist to get heard, become famous and make a living off their music now than at any point in the history of this planet.

* Technology has made it possible for any artist to get distribution, to get discovered, to pursue his/her dreams with no company or person out there making the editorial decision that they are not allowed "in".

* The majority of music now being created and distributed is happening outside of the "traditional" system.

And to reiterate, sales are up...

Seeing that the Nielsen stats are readily accessible and accepted as legitimate, why then are we left with the impression that music sales and revenue are down? The simple answer is album sales and overall gross revenue from music sales (CD and downloads) are down. The increase in music purchases comes from the people buying individual songs. The decrease in revenue comes from a $0.99 song costing less than a $16.98 physical album as well as fewer purchases of physical CDs.

The State of The Music Industry & the Delegitimization of Artists

(via EFF Deep Links)

(Image: Diesel Sweeties tee)

bench craft company scam

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

About Making Money

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

No comments:

Post a Comment