I’ve tried to stay clear of this one (again), but it became too difficult. Even though I doubt anything I say will change opinions, I’m going to speak anyhow.
With all respect to those who are passionate (or even Luke-warm) about royalty issues, the post Jussi made finished with these words ”Laws of course are created in congresses, so if it seems to be an unfair or ridiculous law, you better start writing to your congressman”. This is ultimately what any one of us has the option to do when we feel change is necessary. I am certainly not anyone’s champion is this area, but when I have been passionate to this degree about bills either passed or about to be recommended, I make calls and write letters and let the powers that be know that I see some type of injustice and why. If you can rally enough others to do the same, you will be listened to.
Copyrights are nothing like comments, opinions, wisdom or tips that anyone may share on this forum. For anyone who is otherwise paid for those things as their primary source of income, you either won’t see them appear here or they are making a choice to give of themselves freely for whatever reason. Some of you know that I am proudly an advocate of songwriter’s rights. I’ve also stated previously that with all the uncharted, fairly new territories emerging (i.e.; the internet), the ways and means of protecting and collecting monies for songwriters is an overwhelming task.
Any of the Performing Rights Organizations, or “PRO’s”, (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC in the USA), have not recently created a new and surprising law to unjustly garner monies from venues featuring live performances. These have been in place for decades. However, the PRO’s have not focused but on a relative handful until recently (i.e.; theatre venues). I personally believe that the reason we are seeing stories about towns like Manchester, MD is that the income stream by PRO’s, writers and publishers has been so devastated by online file sharing, that they are having to look at largely overlooked areas of income. But remember, collecting from live venues (or where the music is piped in or otherwise mechanical performed) is a legitimate and fair concept. In the example of Manchester (and I’m using Donnie’s figures and have not verified this story on my own), I fail to see how $225 will cause even a ripple in that towns’ budget or that event. I work several ‘free admission’ park venues myself during the summer and fall and yet I get paid, as do the other musicians and the other bands. I certainly don’t feel that I’m holding the town hostage and forcing them to pay ransom…it was their choice. Some of these parks are in small communities I’m sure similar to Manchester.
A single situation such as Manchester will not affect a significant increase in writer’s income, but yes, enforcing long-standing laws and agreements can. Lay’s Potato Chip Company will certainly not make a profit off of selling a single bag of chips. Rather, they charge small fee (well, I’m even choking a bit when I say that) and count on bulk sales throughout the world show profitability.
Even if the potential increase in a writer’s income was the difference between driving a Chevy Vega or an Altima, are we going to judge writers unworthy of the same pursuit of the American Dream that we all have?
Overall, I think that the distribution of royalties collected does make it to the rightful recipients. I, for one, get occasional and small amounts from usage of my songs in places throughout the world that I would have otherwise never known were being performed. There are but a relatively small number of songwriters who are wildly successful while the lion’s share are those who are holding on for dear life while supporting themselves in a wide variety of ‘day jobs’. Full-time musicians and songwriters, by and large, do not have 401k plans, many don’t have health insurance benefits and they live many times in lower income brackets. They hold out for some level of success and basically “their turn”. But, this is a choice they have made and we certainly don’t have to pity them. However, I also feel that we don’t have to help dash their families’ potential future.
Will even the most successful writers benefit from the Manchester’s of the world? Of course and rightfully so. Will lower income writers have a much better life? Maybe, maybe not, but if their material is being performed, they will get their fair share. Is this or any other system perfect…no, but neither is the price of gas or auto registration in the State of Arizona. Yep…I’ve written letters and sent faxes and emails about that too.
In this and other posts (and debates elsewhere), I’ve seen some of the same questions or comments. One even mentioned in this post is “where will this go next?”. The basis of this question normally supports the concept that we, as Americans, are kinda gritting our teeth over paying these royalties ‘unfairly’ to begin with and my God!..if we don’t nip this situation in the bud now, we’ll be paying out the nose like taxes before long. But, beyond all of this, unless you are a vendor who is responsible for paying legitimate royalties, what is the purpose of the argument? Some of the answers to this question have led to debates over doing away with a royalty structure altogether. Others have led to even the concept that what musicians do should be appreciated as art but certainly not compensated for.
I’ll go back a bit and say that if anyone reading this still feels royalties, in any of their legitimate forms, are unjust and you are not a royalty paying vendor (and I’m not talking about those who buy CD’s), and with all the really serious and unjust situations on this planet right now, then I would think you would have the responsibility to yourself and your peers to pursue legitimate change. If this is your cause at this point in your life then I say grab hold of it with both hands and go for it. In the meanwhile, I’m going to appreciate every single dime or dollar I get from the PRO’s knowing that it’s good, clean money.
Paying for performance rights...
Moderator: Dave Mudgett
-
Miguel e Smith
- Posts: 684
- Joined: 5 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- State/Province: Arizona
- Country: United States
-
Tom Olson
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 21 Feb 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Spokane, WA
- State/Province: Washington
- Country: United States
Donny,
regarding your earlier post in which you said, "artists should be paid if their work and creativity creates substantial profit for someone else."
I would counter that by asking, "how would one define 'substantial profit for someone else?'"
And, I would also ask why would it be a good idea only to pay an artist for their work if it only generated an amount of profit over some set value? That doesn't seem fair to me.
Regarding your "neighbor's flower garden" conundrum, I'll say this: Looking at something that is set out for everyone to look at freely is equivalent to listening to something that is broadcast for everyone to listen to freely.
Also, and more importantly, looking at, or listening to, is different from making something available for others to look at or listen to.
If your neighbor, instead of placing flowers outside his/her house for everyone to enjoy, decided to sit out on his/her porch with his/her friends and play a perfect and rousing rendition of the latest hit country song for everyone to enjoy, there is no law against (nor is there any obligation for you to pay for) listening to that song.
However, your neighbor and his/her friends would be liable for royalty fees due the public performance of that song -- you would not be liable since all you did was listen to it.
Similarly, if your neighbor set up a huge movie screen in his/her yard and decided to play a new DVD for anyone and everyone to look at, you're neighbor would be the one breaking the law, not the ones who look at the movie.
So, in other words, merely looking at something, or merely listening to something, does not give rise to any obligation of the looker or listener for payment under the copyright laws.
Instead, it's the one who performs, broadcasts, copies, or whatever, the work who is liable for royalty payment, fines, jail etc. etc.
So, one important distinction to make from your flower conundrum is that your neighbor is the one who planted, grew and then displayed the flowers for everyone to look at. Since your neighbor was the one who created the flowers (with a little help from mother nature), then your neighbor has the right to display the flowers. Also, since your neighbor displayed the flowers for everyone to look at, your neighbor cannot come back after you look at them and demand payment for looking at them.
By comparison, in cases of copyright violation, a FIRST person works to produce a song, movie, painting, book, etc. etc., and a SECOND person makes it available for everyone else to look at for free without permission of the FIRST person. It doesn't matter if a fee is collected or not. The point is that one person is doing something to someone else's property without permission of the property owner.
You also raise the question, "are not my own (and many others') verbal contributions to the Forum "work and creativity"?
The answer is yes. You'll also notice that at some time or another b0b posted a notice on the forum that went something like, "all postings not expressly claiming copyrights therein shall be deemed part of the public domain" or something like that.
So, that means, if you post something here on the forum and claim copyright in it, that posting is subject to copyright status -- which means that if someone publicly performs you posting or publishes it, you will be due a royalty.
It DOES NOT mean that you will be due a royalty fee if somebody copies it down or talks about it or hold a class on it etc. etc., because there are exceptions in the copyright laws called "fair use." For example, one of the most widely known exceptions is that of PERSONAL USE. You can copy, perform, etc. etc. a copyrighted work as long as it's within your own home and for your personal use (and as long as you've LEGALLY obtained the original copy of the work -- e.g. when you purchase a CD it comes with an implied license for you to make personal copies for your own use). So, for example, if you buy a CD, you can record it onto a cassette tape so you can listen to it in your old car etc. You can learn a song with your friends and you can play it for yourselves or for your family and friends.
However, you cannot perform it publically without incurring an obligation to pay royalty fees for that performance.
You also ask, when someone here comes up with a new tuning, or new pedal setup...is that not "work and creativity"? The answer is, yes, a new pedal tuning would probably be something that could be copyrighted. However, a copyright would probably cover only the printed chart itself and not the method of actually tuning the guitar. The method of tuning the guitar would probably be covered better in a patent. However, the problem would be PROVING THAT NOBODY HAS EVER DONE IT BEFORE.
Part of the object of copyright and patent laws is to protect ORIGINAL works. So, the whole point of getting a copyright or patent in something is that the something has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE or that it's TOTALLY ORIGINAL.
Do I feel guilty when I use something from the Forum...that I have no intention of paying for?
The answer: if I use it for my personal use, then . . . no, I don't feel guilty -- that's within the realm of fair use under the copyright laws.
If I were to take someone else's idea and then try to sell it and make a profit from it without their permission . . . yes, in that case, I would feel guilty.
You ask further, "shouldn't those who contribute (those tunings, tab, pedal setups, problem solutions, etc.) be paid for their efforts? Even Bob Lee, who runs our Forum, contributes all his time and work, doesn't get paid for all his efforts!
MY ANSWER: If such pedal tunings, tab, etc. etc. are original and are, indeed, justifiably unique and original works by the author, then, yes -- these people should be paid a royalty for any publication of these works in magazines, etc. etc. etc.
Since they're posting these things here on the forum with full knowledge that the this is a public forum for everyone to look at freely, then the publication on the forum doesn't count (that would be like if some guy makes up a song, then goes down to the corner and plays it in front of a bunch of people and then tries to charge them all royalty payments -- it doesn't work that way [see explanation above with regard to looking at flowers]).
Regarding ol' b0b -- sure I give a hoot about him, everyone does
It's plain to see that he works hard to bring us the forum and he desrves much more than he apparently gets 
--edits--
Miguel: you apparently posted your message while I was still pecking away at my keyboard. I have to say that your message is very well written and makes an excellent argument.
Bobby Lee (and others) -- regarding ASCAP, BMI etc. payments: the fact that you are getting NO payments at all from your songs seems fishy to me. Are you a member of ASCAP and are all your songs registered with ASCAP? If so, you may also want to contact the venue owner or manager and ask about what kind of arrangment they have with ASCAP(or whomever). Like I've said before, the copyright laws allow the copyright owners and their customers to negotiate and agree to their own royalty rate structure. You, as an ASCAP member, have undoubtedly agreed to allow ASCAP to negotiate such rate structures for you. It may be entirely possible that the fact that you don't get any payments for your songs is, in fact, in accordance with the rate structure that has been negotiated by ASCAP with the venue owner.
Then again, it would seem kind of pointless to collect an ASCAP fee in cases where you are performing your own songs and nobody else's, and when you're already presumably being paid a performace fee by the venue. In such a case, the venue owner would simply subtract your ASCAP fee from what they're already paying you to perform. Most likely there is some sort of clause in the ASCAP agreement that says no ASCAP performance fees will be due by the venue in instances where the artist is the one performing and they are performing nothing but their own songs. I would think in that kind of situation, it would be a lot simpler and efficient for the band to simply negotiate payment directly with the venue owner.
With that said, however, if ASCAP is collecting a fee from the venue owner and is also not paying you, then something is wrong. Unless it's a small nominal fee in which case I would think that is appropriate for recovering ASCAP's operational costs. In any case, I'd be interested to find out what the deal is.
Also, regarding those who have witnessed shady ASCAP or BMI reps -- do you know for sure that these cats were legitimate reps? If so, how do you know? I'm sure more than one crafty old grifter has made some bucks posing as an ASCAP or BMI rep. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 11 September 2003 at 11:23 AM.]</p></FONT>
regarding your earlier post in which you said, "artists should be paid if their work and creativity creates substantial profit for someone else."
I would counter that by asking, "how would one define 'substantial profit for someone else?'"
And, I would also ask why would it be a good idea only to pay an artist for their work if it only generated an amount of profit over some set value? That doesn't seem fair to me.
Regarding your "neighbor's flower garden" conundrum, I'll say this: Looking at something that is set out for everyone to look at freely is equivalent to listening to something that is broadcast for everyone to listen to freely.
Also, and more importantly, looking at, or listening to, is different from making something available for others to look at or listen to.
If your neighbor, instead of placing flowers outside his/her house for everyone to enjoy, decided to sit out on his/her porch with his/her friends and play a perfect and rousing rendition of the latest hit country song for everyone to enjoy, there is no law against (nor is there any obligation for you to pay for) listening to that song.
However, your neighbor and his/her friends would be liable for royalty fees due the public performance of that song -- you would not be liable since all you did was listen to it.
Similarly, if your neighbor set up a huge movie screen in his/her yard and decided to play a new DVD for anyone and everyone to look at, you're neighbor would be the one breaking the law, not the ones who look at the movie.
So, in other words, merely looking at something, or merely listening to something, does not give rise to any obligation of the looker or listener for payment under the copyright laws.
Instead, it's the one who performs, broadcasts, copies, or whatever, the work who is liable for royalty payment, fines, jail etc. etc.
So, one important distinction to make from your flower conundrum is that your neighbor is the one who planted, grew and then displayed the flowers for everyone to look at. Since your neighbor was the one who created the flowers (with a little help from mother nature), then your neighbor has the right to display the flowers. Also, since your neighbor displayed the flowers for everyone to look at, your neighbor cannot come back after you look at them and demand payment for looking at them.
By comparison, in cases of copyright violation, a FIRST person works to produce a song, movie, painting, book, etc. etc., and a SECOND person makes it available for everyone else to look at for free without permission of the FIRST person. It doesn't matter if a fee is collected or not. The point is that one person is doing something to someone else's property without permission of the property owner.
You also raise the question, "are not my own (and many others') verbal contributions to the Forum "work and creativity"?
The answer is yes. You'll also notice that at some time or another b0b posted a notice on the forum that went something like, "all postings not expressly claiming copyrights therein shall be deemed part of the public domain" or something like that.
So, that means, if you post something here on the forum and claim copyright in it, that posting is subject to copyright status -- which means that if someone publicly performs you posting or publishes it, you will be due a royalty.
It DOES NOT mean that you will be due a royalty fee if somebody copies it down or talks about it or hold a class on it etc. etc., because there are exceptions in the copyright laws called "fair use." For example, one of the most widely known exceptions is that of PERSONAL USE. You can copy, perform, etc. etc. a copyrighted work as long as it's within your own home and for your personal use (and as long as you've LEGALLY obtained the original copy of the work -- e.g. when you purchase a CD it comes with an implied license for you to make personal copies for your own use). So, for example, if you buy a CD, you can record it onto a cassette tape so you can listen to it in your old car etc. You can learn a song with your friends and you can play it for yourselves or for your family and friends.
However, you cannot perform it publically without incurring an obligation to pay royalty fees for that performance.
You also ask, when someone here comes up with a new tuning, or new pedal setup...is that not "work and creativity"? The answer is, yes, a new pedal tuning would probably be something that could be copyrighted. However, a copyright would probably cover only the printed chart itself and not the method of actually tuning the guitar. The method of tuning the guitar would probably be covered better in a patent. However, the problem would be PROVING THAT NOBODY HAS EVER DONE IT BEFORE.
Part of the object of copyright and patent laws is to protect ORIGINAL works. So, the whole point of getting a copyright or patent in something is that the something has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE or that it's TOTALLY ORIGINAL.
Do I feel guilty when I use something from the Forum...that I have no intention of paying for?
The answer: if I use it for my personal use, then . . . no, I don't feel guilty -- that's within the realm of fair use under the copyright laws.
If I were to take someone else's idea and then try to sell it and make a profit from it without their permission . . . yes, in that case, I would feel guilty.
You ask further, "shouldn't those who contribute (those tunings, tab, pedal setups, problem solutions, etc.) be paid for their efforts? Even Bob Lee, who runs our Forum, contributes all his time and work, doesn't get paid for all his efforts!
MY ANSWER: If such pedal tunings, tab, etc. etc. are original and are, indeed, justifiably unique and original works by the author, then, yes -- these people should be paid a royalty for any publication of these works in magazines, etc. etc. etc.
Since they're posting these things here on the forum with full knowledge that the this is a public forum for everyone to look at freely, then the publication on the forum doesn't count (that would be like if some guy makes up a song, then goes down to the corner and plays it in front of a bunch of people and then tries to charge them all royalty payments -- it doesn't work that way [see explanation above with regard to looking at flowers]).
Regarding ol' b0b -- sure I give a hoot about him, everyone does
It's plain to see that he works hard to bring us the forum and he desrves much more than he apparently gets --edits--
Miguel: you apparently posted your message while I was still pecking away at my keyboard. I have to say that your message is very well written and makes an excellent argument.
Bobby Lee (and others) -- regarding ASCAP, BMI etc. payments: the fact that you are getting NO payments at all from your songs seems fishy to me. Are you a member of ASCAP and are all your songs registered with ASCAP? If so, you may also want to contact the venue owner or manager and ask about what kind of arrangment they have with ASCAP(or whomever). Like I've said before, the copyright laws allow the copyright owners and their customers to negotiate and agree to their own royalty rate structure. You, as an ASCAP member, have undoubtedly agreed to allow ASCAP to negotiate such rate structures for you. It may be entirely possible that the fact that you don't get any payments for your songs is, in fact, in accordance with the rate structure that has been negotiated by ASCAP with the venue owner.
Then again, it would seem kind of pointless to collect an ASCAP fee in cases where you are performing your own songs and nobody else's, and when you're already presumably being paid a performace fee by the venue. In such a case, the venue owner would simply subtract your ASCAP fee from what they're already paying you to perform. Most likely there is some sort of clause in the ASCAP agreement that says no ASCAP performance fees will be due by the venue in instances where the artist is the one performing and they are performing nothing but their own songs. I would think in that kind of situation, it would be a lot simpler and efficient for the band to simply negotiate payment directly with the venue owner.
With that said, however, if ASCAP is collecting a fee from the venue owner and is also not paying you, then something is wrong. Unless it's a small nominal fee in which case I would think that is appropriate for recovering ASCAP's operational costs. In any case, I'd be interested to find out what the deal is.
Also, regarding those who have witnessed shady ASCAP or BMI reps -- do you know for sure that these cats were legitimate reps? If so, how do you know? I'm sure more than one crafty old grifter has made some bucks posing as an ASCAP or BMI rep. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 11 September 2003 at 11:23 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Jim Cohen
- Posts: 21845
- Joined: 18 Nov 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- State/Province: Pennsylvania
- Country: United States
-
Miguel e Smith
- Posts: 684
- Joined: 5 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- State/Province: Arizona
- Country: United States
I'm reading and writing this stuff on my breaks from doing Christmas music for "Mike & T". (Yep, I'll be paying royalties.)
Also good points Tom. I wanted to also comment on what I'm picking up about Bob not getting performance royalties (do I have that correct?).
As a writer, I'm with BMI, but as a publisher, I co-own and manage an ASCAP company as well. There are performances that all the PRO's miss. They are usually small markets and those that don't always do their paperwork the way they should, but sometimes even bigger ones are missed. As a writer (or publisher) it can serve you well to make sure all of your songs' data is correct with the PRO's (or even with third parties that collect mechanical royalties such as the Harry Fox Company). I sometimes get royalties from songs that are not in our catalog or I hear one of my songs on some late night local TV show and never see any monies from it.
A local friend has put out several instrumental CD's and he goes to the trouble of collecting playlists, dates and times from some radio stations and he submits them to (in this case) ASCAP. It is working for him but it's not always easy. Many of the new faces at any of these companies are little more than interns and they don't have more than a clue about some aspects of the biz. No, I don't think they are evil, but sometimes you almost have to do their job for them over and over again. Even with big name writers and publishers, they all know there is a percentage of royalties they know will slip away and there's nothing they can do about it. Kinda like if someone was panning for gold and they imagine how much washed downstream.
Anyhow, a long way of saying that it would be a good idea, Bob, for you to verify your clearance forms and all the info on them. If you have proof of airplay, submit it to your PRO (and hopefully you'll get someone who'll listen to you).
Mike
P.S.; Jim, if Volare was my copyright, it would cost more than the royalty fee to even attempt to collect. I'd let it go personally.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Miguel e Smith on 11 September 2003 at 12:12 PM.]</p></FONT>
Also good points Tom. I wanted to also comment on what I'm picking up about Bob not getting performance royalties (do I have that correct?).
As a writer, I'm with BMI, but as a publisher, I co-own and manage an ASCAP company as well. There are performances that all the PRO's miss. They are usually small markets and those that don't always do their paperwork the way they should, but sometimes even bigger ones are missed. As a writer (or publisher) it can serve you well to make sure all of your songs' data is correct with the PRO's (or even with third parties that collect mechanical royalties such as the Harry Fox Company). I sometimes get royalties from songs that are not in our catalog or I hear one of my songs on some late night local TV show and never see any monies from it.
A local friend has put out several instrumental CD's and he goes to the trouble of collecting playlists, dates and times from some radio stations and he submits them to (in this case) ASCAP. It is working for him but it's not always easy. Many of the new faces at any of these companies are little more than interns and they don't have more than a clue about some aspects of the biz. No, I don't think they are evil, but sometimes you almost have to do their job for them over and over again. Even with big name writers and publishers, they all know there is a percentage of royalties they know will slip away and there's nothing they can do about it. Kinda like if someone was panning for gold and they imagine how much washed downstream.
Anyhow, a long way of saying that it would be a good idea, Bob, for you to verify your clearance forms and all the info on them. If you have proof of airplay, submit it to your PRO (and hopefully you'll get someone who'll listen to you).
Mike
P.S.; Jim, if Volare was my copyright, it would cost more than the royalty fee to even attempt to collect. I'd let it go personally.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Miguel e Smith on 11 September 2003 at 12:12 PM.]</p></FONT>
-
Bobby Lee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14863
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Cloverdale, California, USA
- State/Province: -
- Country: United States
Naw, I never get any airplay. As for live performance, I attribute the lack of royalties to the fact that no music provider has ever asked the band for a song list.
I used to play in a band that played Herb Steiner's "Nyquill Blues" in bars. I can't imagine how royalties would funnel down to Herb for that. Again, no bar owner ever asked us for a song list.
------------------
<font size="1"><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax</font>
I used to play in a band that played Herb Steiner's "Nyquill Blues" in bars. I can't imagine how royalties would funnel down to Herb for that. Again, no bar owner ever asked us for a song list.
------------------
<font size="1"><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax</font>
-
John Macy
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Rockport TX/Denver CO
- State/Province: -
- Country: United States
Well said, Miguel, as usual . I was about halfway though a reply, but you said it so well...
(written in Nashville,where I am in meetings with a bunch of worthless, hungry songwriters--looking at songs for an artist I am producing. I guess I should print out these threads so they could see just how worthless they are, and should get in another business, cause no on thinks they should make a living doing something that is worth so little. I'm sure they'll be real encouraged by this. Maybe before I do that, I'll download Lloyd and Buddy's latest CDs. I'm sure they don't care if they make any money back on them...)
. I was about halfway though a reply, but you said it so well...(written in Nashville,where I am in meetings with a bunch of worthless, hungry songwriters--looking at songs for an artist I am producing. I guess I should print out these threads so they could see just how worthless they are, and should get in another business, cause no on thinks they should make a living doing something that is worth so little. I'm sure they'll be real encouraged by this. Maybe before I do that, I'll download Lloyd and Buddy's latest CDs. I'm sure they don't care if they make any money back on them...)
-
Miguel e Smith
- Posts: 684
- Joined: 5 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- State/Province: Arizona
- Country: United States
John, it's just that I use up so many average words to make a simple point about a complex issue. You know, I think it would be a good idea to maybe one day have John, Tom and maybe a few others run a series of posts on this topic to more or less map-out the basics of royalty generation and flow. If we all were on the same page on this topic, I believe the dynamics would possibly be different (Doesn't mean you won't disagree with my viewpoint).
John,
Good luck with the search. I'm going to send you a number in a sec.
Mike
John,
Good luck with the search. I'm going to send you a number in a sec.
Mike
-
Donny Hinson
- Posts: 21810
- Joined: 16 Feb 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
- State/Province: -
- Country: United States
Well I was wonderin' when my ol' buddy John would chime in here! 
(John and I bump heads quite a bit.) John, it's not as though I feel <u>all</u> songwriters are worthless. There are a few out there who have mastered the craft and produce wonderful songs, but most write cookie-cutter drivel (and in your business, you know that as well as I do). Whether a song is good or not doesn't always have bearing on whether or not it becomes a hit. Many times (more often than not, in my estimation), it's the star that sells the song, and not the song that sells the star. Were this not true, we'd have just as many "hits" by unknowns as by the big stars, and we both know that's not the case. For this reason, I don't generally put all songwriters on a pedestal as some people do. Songwriters are like actors in Hollywood...they're everywhere! Most, however (in both occupations) are destined to struggle in obscurity. Now, the songwriters are blaming the 12 year-old with the computer for their obscurity. (I don't know who those actor wannabes in Hollywood are blaming.)
Undoubtedly, there are songwriters who are losing a little money due to the downturn in the industry, but my point is that it's not all due to this "file sharing" that everyone is in such a tizzy about. Songwriting's probably always been an "up and down" business, and it just seems foolish to me to blame all the industry's ills on some teenager with a computer. Songwriting does make some people a good living, no doubt about that. Even with the "evil spectre" of file sharing running rampant, a few talented and lucky ones are still raking in big money. Realistically, though, the average songwriter has no more chance earning a good living writing songs than the average college basketball player does making it with the NBA. It's a skill or talent that's given only to a few, and like sports-star wannabes, only one or two percent are ever gonna "make it". The rest? My advice is to write in your spare time...and find a good day-job. When they put a stop to this file sharing stuff, you'll have no one to blame but yourself for your lack of "financial success".
(John and I bump heads quite a bit.) John, it's not as though I feel <u>all</u> songwriters are worthless. There are a few out there who have mastered the craft and produce wonderful songs, but most write cookie-cutter drivel (and in your business, you know that as well as I do). Whether a song is good or not doesn't always have bearing on whether or not it becomes a hit. Many times (more often than not, in my estimation), it's the star that sells the song, and not the song that sells the star. Were this not true, we'd have just as many "hits" by unknowns as by the big stars, and we both know that's not the case. For this reason, I don't generally put all songwriters on a pedestal as some people do. Songwriters are like actors in Hollywood...they're everywhere! Most, however (in both occupations) are destined to struggle in obscurity. Now, the songwriters are blaming the 12 year-old with the computer for their obscurity. (I don't know who those actor wannabes in Hollywood are blaming.)Undoubtedly, there are songwriters who are losing a little money due to the downturn in the industry, but my point is that it's not all due to this "file sharing" that everyone is in such a tizzy about. Songwriting's probably always been an "up and down" business, and it just seems foolish to me to blame all the industry's ills on some teenager with a computer. Songwriting does make some people a good living, no doubt about that. Even with the "evil spectre" of file sharing running rampant, a few talented and lucky ones are still raking in big money. Realistically, though, the average songwriter has no more chance earning a good living writing songs than the average college basketball player does making it with the NBA. It's a skill or talent that's given only to a few, and like sports-star wannabes, only one or two percent are ever gonna "make it". The rest? My advice is to write in your spare time...and find a good day-job. When they put a stop to this file sharing stuff, you'll have no one to blame but yourself for your lack of "financial success".
-
Miguel e Smith
- Posts: 684
- Joined: 5 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- State/Province: Arizona
- Country: United States
-
Tom Olson
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 21 Feb 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Spokane, WA
- State/Province: Washington
- Country: United States
Hey Miguel,
I like your idea of discussing this topic further. Honestly, I don't know much more than the basics and what the statutes say.
So far, it looks like you and John are some of the most knowledgeable as far as the hands-on experience. I'd like to learn more about that -- how everything really works on a practical level, day-to-day.
I like your idea of discussing this topic further. Honestly, I don't know much more than the basics and what the statutes say.
So far, it looks like you and John are some of the most knowledgeable as far as the hands-on experience. I'd like to learn more about that -- how everything really works on a practical level, day-to-day.
-
JB Arnold
- Posts: 1838
- Joined: 2 Feb 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Longmont,Co,USA (deceased)
- State/Province: -
- Country: United States
Look, if I write a song that gets airplay, I deserve to be paid and and I deserve every dime. I couldn't care less about who likes it and who doesn't, or how many innocent dead bodies wind up on the side of the road as a result. Music in many cases is free to the end user because someone else has paid for it. And yes, the writer gets paid every time the song gets played, from one source or another, and that's how it should be. If I get filthy rich off the public's back because I had the presence of mind to string together some "worthless dribble" and get a copyright, good for me. Sorry it bothers you but I don't care. Music ain't free. Even the Grateful Dead enforce their copyrights-aggressively. They avoid the whole uploading thing by controlling it themselves, and maintaining a tape vault unrivaled by anyone else, and making it available to the fans. Currently, you can pay $25 at their shows, and have a 3 CD set of that show in your mailbox in 2 weeks. Top notch board mixes.
And generally whatever comes into your house IS yours-until you upload it to the internet and start giving it away for free. Sorry dude, it's not yours to distribute. You paid for a copy, not a license. Yeah it sucks that CD's only have one good song on 'em, but if folks would quit buying them the suits would change their policies.
Hopefully, one day I'll get to be one of these freeloaders stealing everyone's money for worthless gibberish. If I can shove it down the pipeline, I deserve every penny I get. I won't wear a mask and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank. And I'll see to it that the copyright is enforced as it should be.
JB
Edit-one addtional thought: While we're on the the subject of gibberish, lets keep in mind that songwriting is not an art, it's a craft. The idea is to ship product. As much as humanly possible. You want art, I suggest you visit one of your city's many fine museums.
Hey! Usually THEY have a free day!
JB
------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Fessenden D-10 8&8
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net
http://www.nrpsmusic.com/index.html
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:09 AM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:11 AM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:20 AM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:23 AM.]</p></FONT>
And generally whatever comes into your house IS yours-until you upload it to the internet and start giving it away for free. Sorry dude, it's not yours to distribute. You paid for a copy, not a license. Yeah it sucks that CD's only have one good song on 'em, but if folks would quit buying them the suits would change their policies.
Hopefully, one day I'll get to be one of these freeloaders stealing everyone's money for worthless gibberish. If I can shove it down the pipeline, I deserve every penny I get. I won't wear a mask and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank. And I'll see to it that the copyright is enforced as it should be.
JB
Edit-one addtional thought: While we're on the the subject of gibberish, lets keep in mind that songwriting is not an art, it's a craft. The idea is to ship product. As much as humanly possible. You want art, I suggest you visit one of your city's many fine museums.
Hey! Usually THEY have a free day!
JB
------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Fessenden D-10 8&8
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net
http://www.nrpsmusic.com/index.html
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:09 AM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:11 AM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:20 AM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by JB Arnold on 12 September 2003 at 07:23 AM.]</p></FONT>
-
Donny Hinson
- Posts: 21810
- Joined: 16 Feb 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
- State/Province: -
- Country: United States
-
Charles French
- Posts: 394
- Joined: 9 Jun 2003 12:01 am
- Location: Ms.
- State/Province: -
- Country: United States
Everyone has a right to what's coming to them.It's ones right to want "Every single Penny" In our society today you can have a better chance of getting it too.Because if your right's are being infrindged upon and there'e some money at stake, you can bet someone will be willing to get you every red cent you got coming minus there fee for this service.I tell you nothing in this world is free. The problem I see is where does the greed stop. How far can one go to see that they get every penny coming to them. Why should I even have the right to listen to a recording I didn't buy. If I'm at a friends home and listen to a song that I didn't buy isin't there some law somewhere that says this is illegal. After all resturants and clubs have to pay up for music played. I'm sure all those harping on what's rightfully theres has Never made a cassette for someone or Never had a cassette made for them of something they didn't buy. This didn't just start happening and no one in this world has not had possession of music they didn't pay for. With the invention of computers this world will never be the same as they will probably be responsible for our dimise. Yes things are getting worse and people are stealing music thay didn't buy. Greed is a terrible thing, don't matter if you selling, buying or stealin'
-
Miguel e Smith
- Posts: 684
- Joined: 5 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- State/Province: Arizona
- Country: United States
Charles,
I think you are clearly making the point that I (and others) believe is a part of the perception problem. You are refering to normal, common methods of payment to people in a trade that otherwise may not get paid, as 'greed'. Your example of possibly having to pay for listening to music in a friend's house may be an attempt at exagerating that same point, but it's, respectfully, over the top.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you accept a Christmas bonus at year's end, is that greed. Or is accepting normal weekly wages, is that greed also. Royalties are that equivilent for songwriters and publishers. Even those songwriters that are lucky enough to get a draw from a publisher are doing so against their (hopefully) future royalties. Just understand that this is what, in reality, you and others are saying and maybe you don't even realize it.
Respectfully,
Mike
I think you are clearly making the point that I (and others) believe is a part of the perception problem. You are refering to normal, common methods of payment to people in a trade that otherwise may not get paid, as 'greed'. Your example of possibly having to pay for listening to music in a friend's house may be an attempt at exagerating that same point, but it's, respectfully, over the top.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you accept a Christmas bonus at year's end, is that greed. Or is accepting normal weekly wages, is that greed also. Royalties are that equivilent for songwriters and publishers. Even those songwriters that are lucky enough to get a draw from a publisher are doing so against their (hopefully) future royalties. Just understand that this is what, in reality, you and others are saying and maybe you don't even realize it.
Respectfully,
Mike
-
Miguel e Smith
- Posts: 684
- Joined: 5 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- State/Province: Arizona
- Country: United States
Charles,
I think you are clearly making the point that I (and others) believe is a part of the perception problem. You are refering to normal, common methods of payment to people in a trade that otherwise may not get paid, as 'greed'. Your example of possibly having to pay for listening to music in a friend's house may be an attempt at exagerating that same point, but it's, respectfully, over the top.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you accept a Christmas bonus at year's end, is that greed. Or is accepting normal weekly wages, is that greed also. Royalties are that equivilent for songwriters and publishers. Even those songwriters that are lucky enough to get a draw from a publisher are doing so against their (hopefully) future royalties. Just understand that this is what, in reality, you and others are saying and maybe you don't even realize it.
Respectfully,
Mike
I think you are clearly making the point that I (and others) believe is a part of the perception problem. You are refering to normal, common methods of payment to people in a trade that otherwise may not get paid, as 'greed'. Your example of possibly having to pay for listening to music in a friend's house may be an attempt at exagerating that same point, but it's, respectfully, over the top.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you accept a Christmas bonus at year's end, is that greed. Or is accepting normal weekly wages, is that greed also. Royalties are that equivilent for songwriters and publishers. Even those songwriters that are lucky enough to get a draw from a publisher are doing so against their (hopefully) future royalties. Just understand that this is what, in reality, you and others are saying and maybe you don't even realize it.
Respectfully,
Mike
-
Tom Olson
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 21 Feb 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Spokane, WA
- State/Province: Washington
- Country: United States
If I could add one more thing in response to what Charles said --
I think in general, the copyright laws can be thought of as being fairly "common-sensical" (if that is a word) in regard to what is against the rules and what is not.
In other words, the copyright laws are not aimed at invading your privacy or scrutinizing every little thing you do in regard to a song or CD or whatever.
What they aim to do is to "promote the arts and sciences" (as the Constitution says), by enabling those who create "works" (songs, books, movies etc) to be paid for their efforts in creating those works.
The copyright laws attempt to provide for this in the most PRACTICAL way possible (note the emphasis on "practical"). That is, the copyright rules may not be perfect and may not always seem fair, but they're about the best thing to come along so far in this world in that regard. (I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the US is generally thought to be one of the greatest sources of innovation and creativity in history?)
Also, the copyright laws DO attempt to be fair. If you buy a CD you CAN do with it whatever would generally be considered REASONABLE PERSONAL use. This includes making copies for your own personal use, listening to the CD with your friends, loaning the CD to your friends, playing the CD at parties, etc. etc. You can even sell the CD if you want to. These are all consistent with reasonable personal use.
So, the short version is that the copyright laws are aimed at simply enabling creators of works to be able to sell those works fairly. And, the ones who wrote the laws made up a set of rules that they thought were the most practical way to do this.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 12 September 2003 at 01:26 PM.]</p></FONT>
I think in general, the copyright laws can be thought of as being fairly "common-sensical" (if that is a word) in regard to what is against the rules and what is not.
In other words, the copyright laws are not aimed at invading your privacy or scrutinizing every little thing you do in regard to a song or CD or whatever.
What they aim to do is to "promote the arts and sciences" (as the Constitution says), by enabling those who create "works" (songs, books, movies etc) to be paid for their efforts in creating those works.
The copyright laws attempt to provide for this in the most PRACTICAL way possible (note the emphasis on "practical"). That is, the copyright rules may not be perfect and may not always seem fair, but they're about the best thing to come along so far in this world in that regard. (I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the US is generally thought to be one of the greatest sources of innovation and creativity in history?)
Also, the copyright laws DO attempt to be fair. If you buy a CD you CAN do with it whatever would generally be considered REASONABLE PERSONAL use. This includes making copies for your own personal use, listening to the CD with your friends, loaning the CD to your friends, playing the CD at parties, etc. etc. You can even sell the CD if you want to. These are all consistent with reasonable personal use.
So, the short version is that the copyright laws are aimed at simply enabling creators of works to be able to sell those works fairly. And, the ones who wrote the laws made up a set of rules that they thought were the most practical way to do this.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 12 September 2003 at 01:26 PM.]</p></FONT>
-
Charles French
- Posts: 394
- Joined: 9 Jun 2003 12:01 am
- Location: Ms.
- State/Province: -
- Country: United States
Miquel, Considering these royalty collecting agencies seek out a 1 chair barber shop to collect money from because it's patrons listen to the radio. I don't think my statement about being charged for listening to music you didn't buy to overly exagerated. What's next, who's next.
What I do for a living is work.I farmed for 30 years and I can tell you that you don't get every soy bean in the hopper, you don't get every cotton fiber off the stalk. Somethings fall through the cracks, that's life. I do a lot of things in my present job on and off the job that I don't get compensated for. I don't whine about it. I take what I get and like it. If I felt like I wasn't getting my just due maybe I should look for another line of work. When these agencies go to collecting money from barber shops and small town gathering, to me this is greed. I don't disagree that writers have a right to their royalities.
I've been playing music for 35 years and I made a conscience decision years ago that the sacrifices of trying to be a full time musician were more than I was willing to make. There are 8 gazillion people out there who have choosen to be a musician or writer for a living. Out of those 8 gazillion people 99.99% of them are from hand to mouth. Waiting for their big break. What are the chances of being a successful writer or musician in comparison to the number who seek to be. I'm sure the ones that are really successful are being compensated tremendously. With the exception of lost revenues from barber shops and small town festivals. I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box but with what record companies take and publishers take and collection agencies take and so on and on. Choosing to hope for some success as a writer or musician for it's monetary value doesn't sound like too sharp of a career move to me. I like odds but a gazillion to one? no tks.
cf
What I do for a living is work.I farmed for 30 years and I can tell you that you don't get every soy bean in the hopper, you don't get every cotton fiber off the stalk. Somethings fall through the cracks, that's life. I do a lot of things in my present job on and off the job that I don't get compensated for. I don't whine about it. I take what I get and like it. If I felt like I wasn't getting my just due maybe I should look for another line of work. When these agencies go to collecting money from barber shops and small town gathering, to me this is greed. I don't disagree that writers have a right to their royalities.
I've been playing music for 35 years and I made a conscience decision years ago that the sacrifices of trying to be a full time musician were more than I was willing to make. There are 8 gazillion people out there who have choosen to be a musician or writer for a living. Out of those 8 gazillion people 99.99% of them are from hand to mouth. Waiting for their big break. What are the chances of being a successful writer or musician in comparison to the number who seek to be. I'm sure the ones that are really successful are being compensated tremendously. With the exception of lost revenues from barber shops and small town festivals. I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box but with what record companies take and publishers take and collection agencies take and so on and on. Choosing to hope for some success as a writer or musician for it's monetary value doesn't sound like too sharp of a career move to me. I like odds but a gazillion to one? no tks.
cf
-
Miguel e Smith
- Posts: 684
- Joined: 5 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- State/Province: Arizona
- Country: United States
Charles,
We’ve found something we completely agree on! You said “Choosing to hope for some success as a writer or musician for it's monetary value doesn't sound like too sharp of a career move to me.” I couldn’t have said that better myself. Something I used to tell songwriters (and would be artists) who were visiting Nashville and were considering investing their assets to pursue the dream…”If you have 1,000 to invest and your only two choices are either the music business or the roulette wheel in Vegas….put it on black! You stand a much better chance of doubling your money.”
I am curious about your comment about not whining when you don’t get compensated for every task. And this really touches on why I think there is a huge misunderstanding concerning the ethics of the royalty collection and selection process. The implied meaning suggests that writers and publishers (and perhaps others related to them) are whining (?). If that is your meaning, who exactly is whining? Let me put this in even a more general business approach. When you were soy bean farming, would you forsake a acre here or 10 acres there when it was harvest time? Of course not. That’s not good business. There were those that counted on you to be responsible and do everything throughout the year that was required to raise a good crop and (hopefully) be profitable come market time.
I agree that we are all seeing what we probably all consider petty enforcements of collections. But, I also think that had the industry been responsible for the last several decades and not let parcels of crops (smaller venues) go by the wayside that we all would have long since been accustom to what should be considered good business.
I like your statement about not disagreeing that writers have a right to their royalties, but do I detect a “but” in there? I guess that is partly what I am very concerned about…our perception that there are maybe only two categories of music people, (1) those who don’t have any better sense and just stay with the pursuit, or (2) the greedy ones who actually make money (and in an extremely small percentage, a large amount of money).
A few years back, a congressman presented a bill to do away with restaurant/club owners from paying something like $26 a week to have the right to play pre-recorded music. His argument was along the lines of “what’s next and who’s next”. His approach was that this was an area that could get out of hand. I suppose my questions then must be “aren’t we all faced with that same potential with everything in our world that has a price affixed to it? Pickles are over $4 this week, what will they be next week?
So I’m really trying to understand who is being whiny and greedy and who is being charged too much? If the 1 chair barber is being charged too much, then what should that rate be? Or should he not be charged whatsoever. If not, then who should be charged?…a 2 chair, 3 chair? And then how much? You see, small rates have already been decided (not by me). Unlike, let’s say, a plumber, I can’t just determine what my work or songs are worth and charge that rate regardless of how good I may think I am. I paid a plumber $80 an hour (2 hour minimum) last year for about 35 minutes of work. Let’s look past how stupid I felt for paying for it for just a moment and compare that directly with income from a royalty source. If I owned 100% of a song (and I wrote 100% of that same song) that was recorded by artist “X” and released commercially, “X” would have had to sold 2,000 copies in order for me to make back what I spent on that plumber. (current statutory rate for mechanical licenses is 8 cents per unit sold. $160 divided by .08 cents). If I only owned the song but didn’t write it, artist “X” would have had to sell 4,000 copies for me to recoup that $160. And yet one more scenario (very common one at that), let’s suppose I owned half the song and did not write it…artist “X” now has to sell 8,000 copies in order for me to break even on the plumbers expense. Oh yeah, the plumber got paid on the spot and I have to wait 6 to 12 months after the last accounting period of artist “X’s” record label to get paid. (and I didn’t even mention figuring in the expenses it took to get the song recorded by artist X to begin with). Basically, I’m still way in the hole.
Now, I’m not complaining. This is the way this biz works and I knew it before I spent my assets on it. It’s up and down and it’s usually feast or more often famine (are we talking about farming again?). But, it’s like anything else, if you learn the trade and work extremely hard and get very lucky, you can possibly make a go of it. Kimmons Wilson (the founder of Holiday Inn), once said “The secret to success is only working half a day. What you do with the other 12 hours is up to you.”
What I’m saying is that there are plenty of hard working musicians and writers and publishers out there who put in more hours than they will ever get paid for in their lifetime. It’s their choice because it’s what they love to do. If that is whining and greedy, then so be it. I will continue to respect all of your opinions at the same time I disagree with them. That’s kind-of a beautiful oxymoron isn’t it?
Mike
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Miguel e Smith on 13 September 2003 at 08:53 AM.]</p></FONT>
We’ve found something we completely agree on! You said “Choosing to hope for some success as a writer or musician for it's monetary value doesn't sound like too sharp of a career move to me.” I couldn’t have said that better myself. Something I used to tell songwriters (and would be artists) who were visiting Nashville and were considering investing their assets to pursue the dream…”If you have 1,000 to invest and your only two choices are either the music business or the roulette wheel in Vegas….put it on black! You stand a much better chance of doubling your money.”
I am curious about your comment about not whining when you don’t get compensated for every task. And this really touches on why I think there is a huge misunderstanding concerning the ethics of the royalty collection and selection process. The implied meaning suggests that writers and publishers (and perhaps others related to them) are whining (?). If that is your meaning, who exactly is whining? Let me put this in even a more general business approach. When you were soy bean farming, would you forsake a acre here or 10 acres there when it was harvest time? Of course not. That’s not good business. There were those that counted on you to be responsible and do everything throughout the year that was required to raise a good crop and (hopefully) be profitable come market time.
I agree that we are all seeing what we probably all consider petty enforcements of collections. But, I also think that had the industry been responsible for the last several decades and not let parcels of crops (smaller venues) go by the wayside that we all would have long since been accustom to what should be considered good business.
I like your statement about not disagreeing that writers have a right to their royalties, but do I detect a “but” in there? I guess that is partly what I am very concerned about…our perception that there are maybe only two categories of music people, (1) those who don’t have any better sense and just stay with the pursuit, or (2) the greedy ones who actually make money (and in an extremely small percentage, a large amount of money).
A few years back, a congressman presented a bill to do away with restaurant/club owners from paying something like $26 a week to have the right to play pre-recorded music. His argument was along the lines of “what’s next and who’s next”. His approach was that this was an area that could get out of hand. I suppose my questions then must be “aren’t we all faced with that same potential with everything in our world that has a price affixed to it? Pickles are over $4 this week, what will they be next week?
So I’m really trying to understand who is being whiny and greedy and who is being charged too much? If the 1 chair barber is being charged too much, then what should that rate be? Or should he not be charged whatsoever. If not, then who should be charged?…a 2 chair, 3 chair? And then how much? You see, small rates have already been decided (not by me). Unlike, let’s say, a plumber, I can’t just determine what my work or songs are worth and charge that rate regardless of how good I may think I am. I paid a plumber $80 an hour (2 hour minimum) last year for about 35 minutes of work. Let’s look past how stupid I felt for paying for it for just a moment and compare that directly with income from a royalty source. If I owned 100% of a song (and I wrote 100% of that same song) that was recorded by artist “X” and released commercially, “X” would have had to sold 2,000 copies in order for me to make back what I spent on that plumber. (current statutory rate for mechanical licenses is 8 cents per unit sold. $160 divided by .08 cents). If I only owned the song but didn’t write it, artist “X” would have had to sell 4,000 copies for me to recoup that $160. And yet one more scenario (very common one at that), let’s suppose I owned half the song and did not write it…artist “X” now has to sell 8,000 copies in order for me to break even on the plumbers expense. Oh yeah, the plumber got paid on the spot and I have to wait 6 to 12 months after the last accounting period of artist “X’s” record label to get paid. (and I didn’t even mention figuring in the expenses it took to get the song recorded by artist X to begin with). Basically, I’m still way in the hole.
Now, I’m not complaining. This is the way this biz works and I knew it before I spent my assets on it. It’s up and down and it’s usually feast or more often famine (are we talking about farming again?). But, it’s like anything else, if you learn the trade and work extremely hard and get very lucky, you can possibly make a go of it. Kimmons Wilson (the founder of Holiday Inn), once said “The secret to success is only working half a day. What you do with the other 12 hours is up to you.”
What I’m saying is that there are plenty of hard working musicians and writers and publishers out there who put in more hours than they will ever get paid for in their lifetime. It’s their choice because it’s what they love to do. If that is whining and greedy, then so be it. I will continue to respect all of your opinions at the same time I disagree with them. That’s kind-of a beautiful oxymoron isn’t it?
Mike
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Miguel e Smith on 13 September 2003 at 08:53 AM.]</p></FONT>