Annah Moore says her web page, right side out, "refers to being true on the outside to who you are on the inside. Many people are afraid to express how they really feel, or who they really are, which can cause many problems for them and the people they live with. But, by letting go of fears and being who you are, you can find peace and you will definitely be right side out! Believe me, I know!!

"In another way, 'right side out' means bringing the creativity within you (which comes from the right side of your brain) out into the world for others to experience.

"Then, of course, there is the 'right side out' in terms of your laundry, but we won't be referring to that very much here."

heh

Annah also has some interesting, and succint, thoughts on file sharing. And as she points out, "CD duplication costs less than $.40 per disc".

Now read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Song sharing on the internet - an artist's perspective

By Annah Moore

Being a musician and recording artist, as well as a digital artist and programmer, I find great interest in the hubbub that is going on right now with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the rest of the world with regards to file sharing. This is my perspective on the subject, which may or may not matter to you, but maybe it will be a spark to ignite further thought or ideas about it and I at least hope to provide an alternative view about the matter.

First of all, if you take some time to read about the latest events in the industry regarding music sharing on the internet, you will find that the RIAA is making quite the big stink about all this. They're pissed-off that people are copying and sharing their music online and getting something for nothing while keeping the industry (Which is all of five huge record companies) from making their gazillions from over-priced CDs and DVDs.

Having been involved with music for twenty years, and studied the industry for several of those years, I can't say I have a thorough understanding of what exactly goes on in the corporate end of things, but I do know that CD duplication costs less than $.40 per disc. By now, who knows what the actual cost is, and I'm sure it changes depending on the packaging, and in massive bulk quantities it's probably far less than that. My point is that the cost is low and I have a hard time believing that a standard music CD is really worth the $15.99 price tag on most CDs. Of course, what we're paying for is the artist's material, right?

If I could make sixteen dollars for each CD I sold I would be a happy camper, however, it doesn't work out that way for most artists. We would be lucky to get $.50 per unit sold, and that's after we pay the company back their advancements. Granted, the record company has some overhead; the artist royalties, the recording process, mastering, duplication, publishing, copyrights, there is the printing for the insert and on the CD, the packaging, etc., and the marketing. But does that justify the markup? Assuming that the company would glean an equal profit from each disc as the artist, is there really $15.00 worth of other investment per disc involved? Especially with regards to a mass-duplication project for a mega-star? I really doubt it. Maybe I could make far more money per CD if I sold them myself for $5 each, but I wouldn't have the mass-market promotion like the big corps have, or would I?

The big music companies may have hundreds, even thousands, of artists in their roster at any given moment, but surprisingly they only focus their energies (and investments) into a select few. I suppose that this makes some sense in business terms, but is it really fair to those artists who aren't getting as much promotion as even the mid-sized acts?

Another interesting point about big companies is that they tend to like to influence the artist's creative process. This includes it all, song writing, lyric development, image, clothes, attitudes, style, production, everything. Of course, they'll tell you it's in your best interest to follow their "suggestions" because they "know what works". I'm sure this must be good for many artists out there who need some direction, but for those who are content with the way they do what they do and don't want the intervention, it's just a bubble buster and can even throw some artists so off-track and jade them so much they give up on music all-together.

As an artist, how do we maintain our integrity and still find success in the business of music?

Anyone can speculate all they want to about the industry, but my opinion on the business end is this: I believe as artists we should work together to remain independent artists, if nothing more than to maintain our own artistic integrity. When it comes to file-sharing on the internet, I think that if there were a way songs could be verified and tracked, and people who downloaded songs were charged a very small fee for each download, say $.25 (yes, that's twenty-five cents) per song, most of which would immediately go straight to the artist, then file sharing could be a very lucrative method of music publishing and distribution while still giving people an inexpensive and easy means for trying and buying new music. I would not mind paying a quarter for a song.

Now for the coolest part, give each person who shares a song $.02 for each song they share, just for having it available on their computer. Just by them having it available makes it marketable and they should get paid for that. This would give people incentive to keep songs available to others, which would subsequently give the artists more opportunity to make money from their music. Keeping the songs alive on the peer-to-peer networks would be very desirable, and this could be a fantastic way to do that.

With this plan, everyone wins. Oh, wait, except for the recording industry. Now maybe we can see just what they're fighting so hard to protect.

(c)2003 Annah Moore