- This topic has 58 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Comment left, hypothetically speaking of course, their system for composer payment could easily be gamed. According to them you need to always download a new version of the track if you use it for a different project.This enables them to work out the composer splits. What is to stop you from creating an account and just download your own track 100 times.For very little money you can do this easily. Even on AJ this was/is (tx Music1234) an issue but with a far greater monetary investment.
On the flip side how do make sure that the extra download happens? More often than not I would say the video content guys just use the same track over and over without doing this.
They are also NOT involved in Content ID so their claim about hassle free for YT is bogus, also with not being in Content ID they have no idea how your widespread tracks usage is.
Here is Artlists YT channel. Jeremiah is something else! he’s on a mission to undercut the world. LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXNK0IHTX0BoktdtKjqIWoA
[Removed by moderator for potentially slanderous statement.]
Music1234, I totally get your passion, but you just accused a library and a composer of unethical conduct on a public forum and then admitted that you can’t back up your story.
You might ask Art to remove that for you.
I do not see the post as an “accusation”. I see it as a “story I heard” and I made the disclaimer “I can not back this up as 100% fact”. The part about account suspension and name change are facts. Art can delete my post if he wants to. Michael, the “self-buying” issue on that market has been around a long time. Many know it happens. Just like buying streams on spotify happens and it’s often hard for aj to find someone guilty of the self buying behavior. That is a huge problem when a site is built around “popular sales” stats.
I am continuing the discussion with Dennis about “gaming tactics” that happens on these markets. It really is an issue. This topic is “Subscription Survival” I think that also means – how do you survive the next business model that opens up the door for yet even more corruption, unfair accounting, and more ways to game a system put in place. It all ties together in my opinion, but certainly Art can do as he wishes. I’d also like to say that if anyone ever were to pump the sales to make a tune chart, they better make sure it’s a super solid track with “popular and on trend quality” that can hang onto a chart position. Otherwise your self buy strategy will just result in 1 week of promotion, then a fall off the chart result.
@Music1234 I removed your statement because the last thing I need is yet another lawyer sending me a legal notice for something that was stated here.
Slander – “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.”
BTW Music1234 you and LAWriter have a lot to say about the subscription model but have you gone to the Soundstripe video and left comments yet? If not you might want to link back to this thread and “educate” the folks leaving the rave reviews for Soundstripe.
I did comment on their NAB video and they deleted it. Only positive comments allowed I suppose. Ditto for aio.
For the record, I don’t enjoy these silly games at all. I just want an industry and business that is healthy and fair and allows for long term survival for all music writers and publishers. The Blockchain may be the only answer. I just don’t know. This is not “old news’…all of these changes have been happening in the last 3 to 9 months and we all need to be aware of the ramifications. Strange time for sure. I am a big supporter of the fair sytem of 1 license sold = 1 royalty paid to the writer.
I did comment on their NAB video and they deleted it. Only positive comments allowed I suppose. Ditto for aio.
Thanks for doing that but maybe we changed a couple of minds.
Strange time for sure. I am a big supporter of the fair sytem of 1 license sold = 1 royalty paid to the writer.
That’s an understatement! You and I, along with Art and LAwriter have been around long enough to remember the “good old days”, when music had value. The sad thing, and maybe it’s because of market staturation and file sharing (free music), but cheap music has become normalized for the new generation of composers (be they young or just new to the business).
Still, it seems that there are some composers who “aim high,” as you say, and they manage work above all of the models that we debate here.
All true Michael…but some companies have definitely sent out exploratory questionaires getting a feel for how composers would welcome such models. I tell them point blank: if you introduce a subscription model, I will pull my catalog. I told a company that today in an e-mail. People think that their singular voice can not make a difference. I disagree. Certainly a few dozen voices from some key stakeholders with large catalogs and good quality can make a difference. I think many of us are right here on this site can make a difference. If 10 20 30 40 writers (hypothetically) pull out thousands of high quality tracks, a difference will be made.
By the way I left the comment by Mike Lee. It is my alias account.I have been using it for a few years. It allows me to speak freely and honestly without someone attacking my business SoundCloud,or other social media accounts. I do want to add that we all need to behave as far as no threatening or foul language.
FranklinV, Just a quick note – My comment did not use threatening language nor profanity. i simply stated my opinion similarly to the way you did.
Things are changing more rapidly as ever. But not always for the bad.
If I read al this it worries me as a starting library musician. And maybe my pad need some tactic changes. As starting in the non exclusive markets is maybe not a good start anymore? What is the thought of the pro’s about this?
And how al this subscription models change is affecting the exclusive libraries?
Glenn, glad you are asking. As a 25 year veteran producing music for all media, I will never under any circumstances give away my rights to a music publisher exclusively in perpetuity.
It really would even be hard to engage in that deal even if the publisher was offering me $1500 a track. I would never send my music into a subscription model because the accounting is impossible and from what I personally have observed, the lions share of all revenue goes to the company, not the composer/ writer.A lot of young writers seemingly will jump at the chance to sign cues over to an exclusive library for a $50 “consideration fee” aka an “Advance”. The library/ publisher then owns your property in perpetuity, but you maintain your “writers share”. Then there are deals where you sign the cue exclusively for 1 to 3 years and the ownership reverts back to you. I suppose those are OK. I am just at a point in my life where I want to own and control all of the intellectual property I create. There are enough NE companies out there to distribute your music to.
The subscription model is the absolute worst model, the most unethical, and does not allow for fair accounting on any level. If no one participates ever, that business just dies away.
Ownership of your property allows for total control over all decisions: Do you want to try RF? Ok you can…Do you want to put the music on Spotify, Aplle Music, I-tunes, etc…? You can. Do you want to try companies that have relationships with TV networks and TV Production companies and advertising agencies…you can.
I, like many veterans, have my music in many places. Some work well, others don’t work very well at all. One thing is for certian…all this BS talk about how non -exclusive music can “cause problems and confusion” is just total nonsense. After many years of having several different companies represent my music (some who may have the exact same clients)..No one has ever written to me with complaints or concerns about which publisher to credit or where the music was sourced from…etc.
When Publishers say “TV networks demand exclusive music” I simply do not buy it. It’s just a scare tactic to allow themselves to legally and contractually obtain control of intellectual property for $0 to very cheap. I will never participate.
You ask: How do subscription models impact exclusive models? The answer is simple, if no one participates in Subscription models, there is no problem. If composers want to earn 4 cents from a license sold, go ahead and participate but start looking for another job because you will fail. Sub models are all about a greedy company stealing intellectual property so they can profit handsomely while you make enough to buy a piece of candy each month.
Well the thing is the subscription models are there. I don’t like them as much as you do. But It looks like there growing in numbers. I don’t make cue’s for nothing either.
Are the exclusive library’s changing to subscription models or only the non exclusive library’s or both?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.