Report: EMI looking to slash funding for RIAA, IFPI

One of the Big Four labels is apparently unhappy with its return on investment when it comes to funding industry trade groups such as the IFPI and RIAA. British label EMI, which was recently purchased by a private equity fund, is reportedly considering a significant cut to the amount of money it provides the trade groups on an annual basis.

According to figures seen by Reuters, each of the Big Four contributes approximately $132.3 million to fund the operations of the IFPI, RIAA, and other national recording industry trade groups. That money is used in part to fund the industry’s antipiracy efforts—including the close to 30,000 file-sharing lawsuits filed by the record labels in the US alone.

found by Adam Curry



  1. JPV says:

    Good… they should get rid of them totally.

  2. Cinaedh says:

    “…each of the Big Four contributes approximately $132.3 million to fund the operations…”

    As usual, the lawyers were making out like bandits and producing nothing of value in return.

  3. GetSmart says:

    If all the labels cut the RIAAsshat’s funding, they’ll be forced to sue even more music fans to get their green. They’ve just stopped feeding the hyena and let it off the leash. Look for even more egregious behavior on it’s part as the lawyers go trolling for bucks.

  4. Improbus says:

    Death by financial starvation is an excellent punishment for lawyers.

  5. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #3 – If all the labels cut the RIAAsshat’s funding, they’ll be forced to sue even more music fans to get their green.

    That’s obviously not true. The RIAA is the political lobby group of the big labels. Without big label support, they’ll become irrelevant and eventually not exist at all.

    They won’t become vigilantes. They’ll become unemployed.

  6. eyeofthetiger says:

    EMI business strategy is rather interesting. Here is a rare interview with him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jan/27/city.business
    Terra Firma overtook Warner on that biscuit this year.

  7. Mark Derail says:

    By keeping the price of a music CD above the the 10$ range, they created their own problem.

    Had CD’s in jewel cases been sold for 3.99$, with the artist making 25% (1$) directly, things would have been very different.

    Then electronic versions of that same CD, artist making 1$ and record label making same % profit w/o manufacturing costs, would have been win-win.

    IMO the record industry have not only been clueless since 1995, but parasitic corporate morons as well.

    That said, I’m surprised that number is so low, I mean, only 132M$?
    I’m sure they spend more in marketing across all of them in the US alone.

  8. Angel H. Wong says:

    The RIAA lobbyists will use scare tactics and blame the lack of funding to their inability to fight piracy.

  9. 888 says:

    #8 who cares?

    The “piracy” is in the eye of beholder.
    If some another new twisted law will be passed, saying that i.e. nobody can’t breath without paying upfront ‘green tax’ for exhaling CO2 into atmosphere, will you stop breathing?
    I know it sounds like ridiculus example at first, but think of it: up until last century for thousands of years MUSIC WAS FREE, and no one had any problem with that either, until some ‘smart’ lawyer found out how to make money off of it…

  10. Mark Derail says:

    1. Most music artists are very rich
    2. Most music artists are very smart

    What’s to prevent the music artists to CREATE their very own, worldwide, record label?

    Why do they have to go to bed with Sony/EMI/Warner?

  11. Mister Mustard says:

    >>1. Most music artists are very rich

    They are? I knew that Brittany and Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones were very rich, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of musicians pretty much got the rough end of the pineapple.

  12. Terry says:

    #10
    >>1. Most music artists are very rich

    Really? How come the band playing at the roadhouse on Highway 4 sleeps in their van instead of a hotel? Why then did I have to let all those punk bands crash in my San Francisco flat back in the 1980s? They couldn’t even buy their own beer, let alone rent hotel rooms.

    >>2. Most music artists are very smart

    If that were the case, wouldn’t you be hearing much better music these days? Music you’d gladly pay $12-$15 for to get on CD? If they’re so smart, why is there so little music being made that I really want to hear (and pay my hard-earned money to own)?

  13. FUALL says:

    Most music artists are POOR.
    The price of music being sold has nothing to do with artists, who are (mostly) being paid per contracts that boil down to i.e. “you make 3 albums in 4 years, we pay you $100k” (and that would be example of very good contract for an upstart band).
    You have to become “big” to shake of shackles of contracts with the bloodsuckers and make real money on your music.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 6544 access attempts in the last 7 days.