- This topic has 44 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
So DI (and others), do you really think music related companies think about composer rights, the sustainability of the music models, pleasing the customers and as a whole, about doing the right thing?
I don’t think so! This is not profitable on the short term (they often forget the long term don’t they ?). I have witnessed it first hand as a research chemist (my former job), this is why I quit and my hobby became my job, as I could not stand being an accomplice of what I consider as criminal agendas.
I think that some music related companies actually do think about composers’ rights. But many people participating in the music business are not primarily music companies. Many are actually technology companies that dabble in music and use it as a commodity to make money. They combine their technology with music to make new products and services. Their concern isn’t for the musician or even music so much.
Composers should be working together to protect their own interests. That is the lesson from this whole post. I am not sure what the solutions are for the music industry as a whole. But they aren’t going to come from arguing. I like to see results, not rhetoric.
I for one am not frustrated because I am busy working hard to secure a future for myself in the music industry. I am always making moves, being creative, and staying positive. No matter the business, hard work, intelligence, and positivity are always ingredients for success.
Let’s make moves, my friends! 🙂
In regards to Desire Inspires, or Yadgyu, or Tramel Willis or whatever troll name he currently goes by he falls into the same category as corporations. A mindless entity spewing false information to gain some sort of false credibility.
I have been on the receiving end of his uninformed libelous attacks many times and I really do not think he deserves a voice in this forum. That is my opinion and I am voicing it here. He has voiced his opinion about me enough times… you have to stand up for yourself at some point.…
Yes, there are companies who do value the composer and their rights. I know this as a fact. But sadly it is becoming increasingly clear that there are less and less of them.
If DI has been libelous towards you in the past, then that’s regrettable and I understand the frustration, but your reaction in the beginning of the thread was about his ignorance of composer’s rights. An ironic stance (and statement above), considering your sites sell music for incredibly low fees – regardless of use – and does not require its clients to fill out cue sheets, which is quite unfavorable for the composer (assuming any licenses are actually for broadcast).
An ironic stance (and statement above), considering your sites sell music for incredibly low fees – regardless of use – and does not require its clients to fill out cue sheets, which is quite unfavorable for the composer (assuming any licenses are actually for broadcast).
Makes sense to me. 🙂
Hi The Dude
1. Our composers set their own prices.
2. We do ask for composer PRO info on signup (if they have any) for broadcast clients that request it.
I think if you asked any composer that actually works with us (and is not simply anonymously conjecturing on a forum) they would say we are a pretty good company that looks out for the composers we represent.Makes sense to me.
That´s not really saying much DI 🙂
To get back on topic, streaming royalties pay so little because the money is not there yet. Where does the money from all royalties come from? Advertisers!
Everything from radio to TV to Internet depends on ad revenue spent by companies trying to sell things. Remember, the music we hear and shows we watch are there to fill space in between commercials.
Composers and songwriters should fight to increase streaming royalties. But at the same time, don’t let the small money from streaming royalties distract you from other more lucrative opportunities.
Hi The Dude
1. Our composers set their own prices.
2. We do ask for composer PRO info on signup (if they have any) for broadcast clients that request it.
I think if you asked any composer that actually works with us (and is not simply anonymously conjecturing on a forum) they would say we are a pretty good company that looks out for the composers we represent.Makes sense to me.
That´s not really saying much DIHi Mark
1. And customers will likely go for cheaper options, but that’s been discussed to death around here. I’m sure you have evidence to the contrary.
2. That’s great, but one of your sites specifically points out under the header that the music is “absolutely royalty free with No PROs, No cue sheets, no hassles”. It’s a drag that PROs and cue sheets are such a hassle, but it’s a good source of income for composers that’s being eliminated because a client doesn’t want to take a few extra steps.I’m just wondering how you’re looking out for your composers when you promote the omission of some of their compensation?
In regards to my anonymity, its a cute little jab you’ve made, but you only seem to make a stink when people disagree with you. I’m just making some points that I think composers should consider.
Composers and songwriters should fight to increase streaming royalties. But at the same time, don’t let the small money from streaming royalties distract you from other more lucrative opportunities.
DI, what are you talking about? Fighting for streaming royalties and looking for lucrative opportunities are not mutually exclusive. I doubt anyone is saying, “I think I’ll fight for more streaming royalties this week instead of doing the trailer for that new robot movie”. I know that’s a very literal interpretation of your comment, but frankly, you’re confusing.
DI, what are you talking about? Fighting for streaming royalties and looking for lucrative opportunities are not mutually exclusive. I doubt anyone is saying, “I think I’ll fight for more streaming royalties this week instead of doing the trailer for that new robot movie”. I know that’s a very literal interpretation of your comment, but frankly, you’re confusing.
Compared to performance royalties from radio spins and TV placements, streaming royalties are tiny. People should work to get what is owed to them. But even superstars receive tiny payments for their work. The business model is young, meaning that there is not a lot of money to be gained.
Chasing and fighting for more performance royalties is a good thing because they will grow in the future. But as of today, composers can make more money from focusing on the other performance royalties. I know the business is hard and confusing. But there are opportunities to get more money by other means.
The best thing for a composer to do is to work with his PRO to get performance royalties. I do not see any other solution to the problem.
To get back on topic, streaming royalties pay so little because the money is not there yet. Where does the money from all royalties come from? Advertisers!
If its Spotify we are talking about its a subscription based service that generates their revenue.
Question: Have anyone here received any streaming royalties yet?
If so, tell us more!
My experience: I have received streaming royalties in the past through my PRO. They were for shows that had my music on Hulu and Netflix. The payments were very small.
1. And customers will likely go for cheaper options, but that’s been discussed to death around here. I’m sure you have evidence to the contrary.
What cheaper options? You mean other websites that composers distribute through? I have no control over that.
We don’t have $1.00 personal license fees like some of these sites.
We don’t do blanket licenses or subscriptions like other libraries.
We don’t enter our composer’s catalogs into the youtube contentID system without their permission and then earn revenue without paying the composer.We sell our composer’s music for exactly the price they set. That’s it.
2. That’s great, but one of your sites specifically points out under the header that the music is “absolutely royalty free with No PROs, No cue sheets, no hassles”.
Yes, all of our sites say that. But when the client asks for PRO info we of course provide it if it is available.
But you are correct, in the end we are and have always have been, for the last 18 years, a PRO free library that negotiates direct licensing between the composer and the client. That is what we have always done and it happens to be a pretty good business model and is the reason we have so many sales.
If our composers thought they were being taken advantage of I think they would simply leave our library.I’ve noticed that you are kind of aggressive with me and my posts.
Did I do or not do something to p**s you off Dude?As far as I know music sold for broadcast is required by law to pay royalties. Anyone buying music for that purpose should know that . Other libraries say the PRO free thing but that is for the majority of folks who buy RF music who are confused abut what PRO’s are and what their potential involvement with them might be. FOR people buying RF music most folks aren’t required to involve themselves with PROS but don’t necessarily know that. Hence the statement which is pretty much an initial sales pitch. This is my understanding of this sort of statement, correct me if I’m wrong.
Chuck Mott
As far as I know music sold for broadcast is required by law to pay royalties. Anyone buying music for that purpose should know that .Chuck, at least for Germany this is definitely false.
If music by a composer, whose repertoire is being represented by the German PRO GEMA is performed in public, then performance royalties have to be paid by the performer.
So for television, the broadcaster (TV station) has to pay performance royalties to the PRO, if it airs a movie in which music by a composer (PRO member) is being used.
If a company airs a corporate video at a trade show – same thing – if they use music by a composer who is a GEMA member, the company has to pay performance royalties to GEMA.
If they use Audiojungle music – no royalties have to paid.
The big TV/radio stations pay a substantial fee to the GEMA for being to allowed to use music by PRO composers.
What is happening at the moment is that more and more low-price international libraries knock at the door, who do not require performance payments, because their composers/music are not represented by any PRO.
If their music/search engines/service is good enough and cost less money, the broadcasters will push for more use of their music and negotiate new (i.e.lower) contracts with the PRO, and the overall cake will shrink.
So again (sorry for the long post:-) – in Germany the broadcaster (or those “performing” music in general), only have to royalties to PROs, if the music is represented by a PRO. Again, if they use Audiojungle music – no PRO royalties have to paid.
Hope that helps.
So again (sorry for the long post:-) – in Germany the broadcaster (or those “performing” music in general), only have to royalties to PROs, if the music is represented by a PRO. Again, if they use Audiojungle music – no PRO royalties have to paid.
Hope that helps.
Great info. Thanks!
There were a few words missing in the last paragraph of my post, and I couldn’t edit it, so here it is again:
So again (sorry for the long post:-) – in Germany the broadcaster (or those “performing” music in general), only have to pay royalties to PROs, if the music is represented by a PRO. Again, if they use Audiojungle music – no PRO royalties have to be paid.
Hope that helps.
Just saw this post. “After 4,175,149 Plays, Pandora Pays Bette Midler $144.21”. http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/6039697/bette-midler-disparages-pandora-spotify-over-artist