It seems these days the artist does not seem to figure in the equation anymore.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/01/bpi_sues_mcps/
The Association of Independent Music, which represents the many independent labels in the UK (who represent about one-quarter of music revenues in the UK, and had a fierce row over prices with the iTunes Music Store in Europe at its launch), notes that the MCPS fee structure doesn't help artists who want to roll their own music download service.
If you, Mr Small-Time Artist, want to sell via your site music (perhaps your own) that is under the MCPS agreement, you have to pay the Society a non-refundable charge of £500, to be set against MCPS payments, per quarter. For songs selling at £1 each, on the eight per cent royalty you have to sell 6,250 per quarter to make it worthwhile, 25,000 annually, else your money's gone for nothing. And for a small artist, £2,000 annually isn't trivial.
"It's enough to put off the serious niche people," said Sam Shemtob, PR for the AIM, (The BPI agrees with this in its complaint against the MCPS.)
Well what can I say, it seems that we have been being ripped off again, under the guise of a "mechanical copy" fee, where does that figure in a download ??
Are there many "unknown" surcharges like this in the industry ?
This sort of stealth tax is not good for the legal download services or the consumer and has in my opinion been mis-applied to the current technology.
I think the industry need to look long and hard at traditional charging mechanisms and fee's and negotiate the best deal for the end consumer, as the market place has moved on, failure to do so will mean your customers cash will too.