- This topic has 56 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
@lupo
I’m not really the guy to ask about that. You would need to check with each individual library and see what their view on the situation is.The quote you have from me above is just my personal take. I would prefer that our composers (composers that work with ML) not use pseudonyms and not retitle their tracks. But that’s just personal and is not policy. If it was policy we wouldn’t have many composers in our library. I understand why composers do it, I just wish they wouldn’t.
We currently have composers who are selling their music for $49.95 on our site and for much less than $0.99 on iTunes via AS compilation albums. I don’t like that at all but as they say here in Spain ‘es lo que hay’.
@Lupo. I think that there is music that is worth $99 and music that is worth $.99. I would never sell a $99 cue for $.99.
But…if I had time and wanted to develop a low end product line…like Toyota makes Lexus (high end) and Corolla (low end), I would do the low end under a different brand name.
I would never market the same cues, at bargain prices, with different titles, or under a pseudonym.
Just write more.
Just my preference.
_Michael
PS…actually I think there’s music that is worth a lot more than $99.
We all have our whishes Mark, but pseudonyms can in some situations be a very smart way to run a business. I do it myself and it has nothing to do with being proud of my music or not, and is absolutely not about being able to sell the same tracks dirt cheap. It is simply all about branding and not wantig to mix up different sides of the music business.
thanks for your replies..
@MichaelL I agree with you but, If you sign up the same track with different non exclusive libraries you loose control and can’t prevent the same track to be sold at different prices.
I’ve read in another thread that for you control of your catalog is paramount and retitling is no good anymore, to which I agree, but how do you maintain control? paradoxically the only way that comes to mind is to sign up with an exclusive library, or sell the same track – always without giving away publishing – with the same title...or just write more…
I agree with you but, If you sign up the same track with different non exclusive libraries you loose control and can’t prevent the same track to be sold at different prices.
You pick and choose which libraries you want to be in. Just don’t choose low-priced libraries. If you’re in libraries that let you set your own price, don’t set it too low. You lose control outside the RF world. Then, you’re at the mercy of whatever the “library” negotiates.
It is simply all about branding and not wantig to mix up different sides of the music business.
Didn’t I just say that???….Lexus v. Corolla???? 😀
“We all have our whishes Mark, but pseudonyms can in some situations be a very smart way to run a business”
Sure, as I said it was just my personal position.
I’m all for brand names, like some composer placing their music by their publishing company name or their library name. Claiming your music is composed by “Outstanding Production Music” is fine.
What I don’t understand is when a composer named Mark Lewis sells his music on another site as Mark Smith and on another site as Zack Lewis.
Makes me think they are trying to get away with something and in my experience (which I have 17 years of) they usually are.Sure, as I said it was just my personal position.
I’m all for brand names, like some composer placing their music by their publishing company name or their library name. Claiming your music is composed by “Outstanding Production Music” is fine.
What I don’t understand is when a composer named Mark Lewis sells his music on another site as Mark Smith and on another site as Zack Lewis.
Makes me think they are trying to get away with something and in my experience (which I have 17 years of) they usually are.I tend to agree. I plan to release separate brands under my publishing company name, but I want people to know that I am person behind it. I guess that’s double branding.
We currently have composers who are selling their music for $49.95 on our site and for much less than $0.99 on iTunes via AS compilation albums.
Yeah, I somehow got on those AS compilation albums and not sure how I did. Most likely my not paying attention to details. Thanks Mark for reminding me about something I’ve been meaning to do for a while. Getting off of them!
We currently have composers who are selling their music for $49.95 on our site and for much less than $0.99 on iTunes via AS compilation albums.
Yeah, I somehow got on those AS compilation albums and not sure how I did. Most likely my not paying attention to details. Thanks Mark for reminding me about something I’ve been meaning to do for a while. Getting off of them!
Which means that if you are selling the same tracks for $0.99 on CDbaby, you are undercutting yourself.
Which means that if you are selling the same tracks for $0.99 on CDbaby, you are undercutting yourself.
They are not and just stopped the AS compilations. Fortunately there are not that many on the compilations.
We currently have composers who are selling their music for $49.95 on our site and for much less than $0.99 on iTunes via AS compilation albums. I don’t like that at all but as they say here in Spain ‘es lo que hay’.
The Audiosparx album tracks are sales not licenses are they not ?. Lady Gaga sells tracks for .99 cents on iTunes, am I missing something ?
I have a few tracks on them from years ago, never saw the harm in it TBH.
Doesn’t generate any income anyway, should take them off?
I can’t think of any pop star that doesn’t sell songs for $0.99 on iTunes, while commanding more $$ to license the same songs.
One is a consumer sale, as you put it Denis, and the other is a license. Different animals.
Sometimes licensing drive consumer sales…cross promotes the music.
“Sometimes licensing drive consumer sales…cross promotes the music.”
The comparison between Lady Gaga and most of the production music composers on this forum is beyond apples and oranges.
I prefer not to represent composers who sell their production music catalog to consumers for personal use as well. Personal use sales of production music always ends badly. I prefer to work with production music composers who are serious about just doing production music. no “bands” or “stars”.
And if you are going to generate nothing or next to nothing doing it why do it?
Just to put a finer point on it.
The problem comes just from the legal end of things and puts more work on the library owner when issues arise.
If a consumer finds your music on an RF site and then does a search for that music and finds it for next to nothing on iTunes they can easily buy that version and use it in their youtube video or DVD and claim they have a license. And then you do not have youtube contentID to protect you in that case because you are playing both sides of the fence, and you are doing it for absolutely no profit. I know composers are artists and everything but sometimes the lack of business sense is astounding.
Real production music composers should take care to protect their music and not put it out there for every tom dick and harry to download for nothing.
Your catalog is your livelihood, you need to protect it.If a consumer finds your music on an RF site and then does a search for that music and finds it for next to nothing on iTunes they can easily buy that version and use it in their youtube video or DVD and claim they have a license. And then you do not have youtube contentID to protect you in that case because you are playing both sides of the fence, and you are doing it for absolutely no profit.
This happens to artists on major record labels everyday.
I see tons of videos on YouTube with nothing more than a picture of an artist’s face and a full version of a new song posted. Sometimes there is even a download link in the description. If someone wants to use someone’s music, it will happen.
YouTube Content ID will not protect anyone. Some people get scared by those notices, but others just ignore them. Those that ignore the Content ID warning will leave the video posted on YouTube until it is taken down by YouTube.