Darius Wey
12-04-2006, 06:30 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/29/steve_gordon_zune_royalties/' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/29/steve_gordon_zune_royalties/</a><br /><br /></div><em>"Although this pattern of not paying artists for digital music sales is dreadful, the chances of artists seeing anything from the royalty placed on Zune is even worse. There is nothing in the standard recording agreement that says the labels must share income derived from licensing digital devices. Labels are only responsible for paying for exploitation of music, not licensing electronic devices. So why would the labels share anything with the artists when they already disregard clauses in the recording agreements that would benefit the artists?"<br /></em><br />Ever since Universal revealed that it would receive a cut of revenue derived from Zune sales, I was skeptical as to whether the artists would receive even a cent of that. Steve Gordon at <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/29/steve_gordon_zune_royalties/" target="_blank">The Register</a> tends to agree, and he offers some compelling reasons to explain his thinking. Give them a read and tell us what you think. Are artists really benefiting from these new sale agreements?