Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why not just have a real life presence?
Maybe Moby should donate all his past and future PRO payments to charity.
The D.I.N.E. organization would be an ideal recipient of any royalties Moby wants to donate.
D.I.N.E. = Desire Inspires Needs Everything. 🙂
It looks as if Electronic composer Moby already has a site where people can license music for independent films for free. This is kind of cool.
Friends don’t let friends read Desire Inspires’ posts.
Time to get better friends then. 🙂
But on a serious note, the developments around the performance free model will be interesting to see. I hope that composers that participate will not be hurt by it.
But it seems like there has to be certain trends that we could all agree will never be good long term for the artist. And I’m speaking more to the career musician. Not the people who have posted they just enjoy doing it whether the get paid or not. Those people don’t really need to worry about this, if income is not a primary goal. If you are willing to give your music away for free for the fun of hearing it on TV or in a youtube video then there will always be a market for what you do. I’m worried about whether or not I have a sustainable career. And I know there are no definite answers.
The problem with following trends is that trends change!
To be honest, many large multinational corporations have no long-term plans for success. Most of the managers cannot see that far into the future. Many of them live on a quarter-to-quarter basis. Corporations are just like the average lower class to middle class citizen; they live paycheck to paycheck.
Career musicians have been disrupted. People that made millions of dollars a year have been forced to embrace new business models in order to survive. Most careers outside of music have been negatively impacted as a result of the rapid changes in finance, technology, and advertisement.
One skill that composers need is the ability to adapt. The ability to hedge one’s bets and participate in short-term, mid-term, and long-term gains will bear the most fruit. One business model that seems exploitative could become the new norm. A tried and true business model could become obsolete. Be vigilant and continue to work hard.
Diversify. It’s not either or.
Makes sense to me.
I know that there is a small but hardcore group of composers that would only prefer to have music in a performance free music library. Some people have a deep dislike and even a hatred of the PROs. By doing direct licensing with a performance free music library, these composers would be choosing to get paid upfront and rejecting backend royalties.
I think this model will not be adapted by PRO composers, at least not initially. But to be honest, I think that the performance free model will be adopted by many micro stock sites and by some non exclusive retitle companies. Royalties from PROs are not the best for smaller companies. They would probably go for splitting an upfront payment with the composer instead of waiting for publishing royalties to come in.
My main question about this model is will there be blanket licenses? A blanket license usually implies that a composer receives no upfront money. The performance free model would provide no backend royalties. So the only winner of a blanket performance free music library is the library itself. Licensing a boatload of tracks on the cheap with this model completely cuts the composer out of the picture financially.
My guess is that the big company that is moving towards the performance free model will initially not do blanket licenses. But they will eventually end up changing the terms with a slight-of-hand and will then offer blanket licenses. From reading the email I received, they are leaving the terms of the contract vague so that they can make such changes without prior consent. Composers will have to opt out, and may pretty much have all of their music removed from the library.
Even if there are no blanket licenses, will payments for individual licenses go up at all? Will people still be licensing music for $10 and splitting half with the music library?
Yes. I just learned a certain large music library is adapting this business model. This will result in difficult decisions for the many composers that have songs with this company.
People may have to pull all of their music from this company. That seems unfortunate. But there are many viable alternatives to working with companies adapting this business model.
The PROs may end up losing out to this new business model. Some will choose to only get upfront payments and may forgo the performance royalty organizations. With the way royalties differ from quarter to quarter, some composers may throw in the towel and get out of the music business altogether.
This could have dire consequences for all. We will need to wiat and see how it all shakes out.
HAHA… So how many tracks did you submit, DI? 😛
None yet.
I have a lot of pieces that I have not been able to exploit. If I had to guess, I would be able to send between 80 to 120 pieces of music if I chose to do so.
But this is not about me. It is about agreeing with a certain philosophy and working to promote that philosophy. I am neither for or against free music. But I believe that everyone has the right to choose without feeling guilty, foolish, or ashamed.
Business will go on with or without this company. I just do not want people to get upset or worried about alternatives to the mainstream music licensing industry.
Everyone has a right to participate, no matter how divergent their music or philosophies may be.
It isn’t such a bad idea. Sure, it will generate absolutely no revenue for composers. But some people just want to share what they have.
Many of the business models today’s music libraries were considered a sad and pathetic joke 10 to 20 years ago. A whole industry has grown from “free music”.
The concept for this company will appeal to certain individuals that are probably not interested in a career. The philosophy behind the company would make sense to those individuals. It is a very extreme philosophy, but has appeal nonetheless.
The argument that I’ve heard in the past is that “they” need to take part of the writers’ percentage in order to get “their” investment back, i.e., the upfront money.
Well, hey wake up and smell the coffee. That’s what an investment is…a risk. Basically, they wanted to mitigate their risk, with your money.
The risk may have been greater in the past. But if a composer uses DAWs and other modern tools to create music, making a song for a WFH deal is not a risk at all.
QUALIFIER: Those that create music using more traditional means or utilize an expensive studio should be more cautious about such deals.
I would enter into these deals. Sometimes they can lead to bigger things, such as becoming a staff writer for the company. A few cues here and there would not be an issue for me.
The royalties alone would be great for cues that were co-written by the owners of a library due to the fact that these tracks show up first in the searches and may be used first. Sometimes taking a chance really isn’t taking a chance at all; it is just an investment into something greater.
I am interested in finding the facts and seeing if there really is an opportunity to generate another revenue stream.
Me too. As long as I can earn money from my music in other ways, I would not mind participating in the YouTube Content ID program. A small check will not pay the mortgage but could be used to buy some DYI items for small home improvement projects. Why turn away easy money?
I don’t know what to make of it. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
I thought that the copyright holder could also monetize his music through other means as well. Multiple payments, no matter how small at first, can grow and grow over time.
Yes, see John…above.
Keep in mind the toolkit is for video editors and producers. It is not for musicians to make and sell library music. Doing so would most definitely be infringement.
Well, heck. What is the point?
Video editors can spend $5,000 and get a ton of great music via a blanket license. Why spend time editing these files? The savings would be minimal in today’s environment in comparison to the time spent.