Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I can see the similarities on a song like Sam Smith’s “Stay with Me” and Tom Petty’s “I won’t Back Down” because the melodies are so alike, but once you start suing for copyright infringement based on grooves and feel, where do stop?
Easy: you don’t stop suing. I am sure MichaelL knows, some lawyers make a good living being copyright and patent trolls.
Welcome!
There is no need to fight.
I just make the best deals for me. The idea of “fighting” seems silly to me. I work to make music and get paid for it. Crusading against companies with bad deals is a distraction. Someone else is always willing to take a bad deal. No amount of education or persuasion will stop some people from “testing the waters”.
The best advice I have is none. People will do what they feel is good for them in the short term without worrying about long term consequences. That is just the way these things go.
I agree with MichaelL. The top tier royalty free companies and the top tier traditional music libraries are not paying less money. They want the best content. They are improving their business models. The mid-tier and lower-tier companies are either working to improve or are competing like dogs to stay in business.
The sad part is that most of the companies that go for an easy buck and downgrade their business models will probably be out of business. Some will survive with outside investments, but most will start to lose any temporary advantage they had and will simply disappear.
That is why it makes sense for composes to only work with the best companies. There is really no need to work with companies that are still trying to figure things out or companies that present unfavorable terms for the composers. The best companies present the best deals.
They work hard to market, promote, and sell the music they have. Any company simply collecting music to present on a website or to send out to networks for free will not be beneficial to composers.
The best sites are 10 to 1000 times better than the mid-tier or low tier sites.
The solution for me is to write better music and send it to the best libraries. If a library isn’t able to make good money for me, that library is not the best library.
I realized that I settled for “good enough” in the past. That strategy has not brought in enough income for me. So I am only working with libraries that bring in higher income. These libraries are harder to get into. That means that I will fail in a lot of my pitches.
But why send 100 tracks to a mediocre library instead of working hard to get 10 tracks into a great library? I am just tired of chasing every new company that pops up. The libraries that help composers make $30,000 or more a year from an album’s worth of music are always looking for great music. Not okay music or good music, but great music.
So I either work to get into those libraries or I quit. That is the only solution going forward for me. If I want the money and less hassle, I improve my craft and work with the best companies!
I don’t know about that. The contract should be reviewed by an attorney if you have real concerns. Posting it on the Internet may not be the best course of action.
If you cannot afford an attorney and the deal does not feel right, then do not sign the deal. Just walk away from this one.
Have you talked with the library first?
That is awesome.
I admire Dave’s enthusiasm.
I am not sure how it all will work out in the end, but Dave has a miniscule voice in the discussion.
Exclusive streaming rights don’t mean that you can only stream your music on one site, they mean that ONE entity has the exclusive right to provide/sell streaming rights to clients. These rights are included in licenses that are sold to clients. As soon as your music goes into one or more libraries, you no longer have exclusive streaming rights as a composer.
Wow. So having music in libraries, even on a non-exclusive basis, causes problems with monetizing one’s music.
Would adding music to AdRev/CID and controlling it truly pose problems for the composer? Aren’t composers able to do direct licenses with their music outside of music libraries for non-exclusive purposes?
I suppose that non-exclusivity has its own set of positive and negative consequences.
There are just so many questions to ask and to answer. I am not sure what the correct answers are just yet. But I may add some unexploited music to AdRev to see what all the fuss is about. It probably will not lead to anything. I just want to see what the big deal is.
This business gets more crazy by the day!
Yes, a lot of reporting about libraries happens here. And lots of music library writers work with ADREV so it would be nice to hear about those experiences too. Or are there strict reporting rules here? Is it limited to libraries?
No.
If you know people that are making money from AdRev, tell them to come here and report their experiences. I am not doubting you or saying that you are hiding something.
There is no conspiracy theory going on. Just let us know what the real deal is as far as making money. I believe that the program is helpful for detecting usages. But I am not convinced that it helps composers to make more money.
Whatever proof you have, share it!!!