[wetwest]

I’ve been playing around with it and it’s very straight forward. On my wish list would be the facility for bulk uploads, storing music files elsewhere, instead of their server, and csv metadata import.

With a small initial investment and your own hosting it’s easy enough to either do it yourself or else find a company or someone to do the bulk of the labor for you in regards to designing it. (disclosure, I own a graphic design agency that does web design/hosting). This would save you money in the long run and keep your monthly payments lower and more consistent basically never requiring more per month for more songs. This also gives you better ownership and creates more equity and ROI. It also provides a better look even at the lower end of the price range.

In this instance its very easy to do bulk uploads, drag and drop hundreds of files and upload a simple spreadsheet, as well host the files on your own server, or rather, one in which you pay for the hosting.

The security is good allowing for secure files. Nothing is perfect at the lower end of the budget, ie certain compromises mostly cosmetic and functional often small and minor have to be made, but with https and a commerce gateway its as secure as anything and still a better option then higher monthlies and less control.

As with anything generating customers is on you, as it will be with these licensing specific template sites. When using your own site however every tool can be given within the website to increase the chances including strong search engine optimization structure and the details you need to make it happen.

[wetwest]

Music1234 & LAwriter

Just some thoughts. Please know I am not intending to insult anyone’s intelligence and many of this may be common knowledge to you or anyone else.

It should come down to the contract regardless whether it’s Exclusive or Non-Exclusive. It would be my thought that educating composers and writers is first and foremost and then keeping an eye out for the few companies that are trying to effectively use rights for their profit without the focus being on monetizing the catalog of rights they have and of course distributing the monies as per the contracts and any applicable law. In the long run the bottom feeders along with the unscrupulous will eventually meet their fate and things should find stable and steady ground to exist in between.

Ultimately when taking an unbiased view it seems the changes that have occurred putting forth the types of deals or licenses that you are mentioning are ultimately down to a few factors. These may be things such as an over saturation of people looking to make money off of music, the subsequent over saturation of content being another, the internet allowing access to quicker easier and more convenient licensing models, the resulting market landscape and devaluation of quality among certain sectors often due to ease of access and piracy and how most solutions have implemented lower royalty opportunities and near forced micro payments to stem the lack of any payment at all and the free market nature of Capitalism combined with of course each individuals requirement to make ends meet.

The shining light or rather the positive in this, is the sheer gargantuan amount of demand and the new and emerging opportunities that never used to exist. Sad as it is for me to say, Vivendi saw UMG make earnings and was their largest revenue generator and in 2018 they paid dividends to shareholders. Licenses and fees, subscriptions and sync is a healthy and vibrant and important area for them and one they seem hopeful and inspired by. They of course have large volumes of content.

Not every company is evil nor is every company that offers blanket licenses evil. Many are simply heeding to consumer and customer demand, and if they don’t, in a free market somebody will. In my belief any payment structure from selling subscriptions for access to useable music for no upfront fee is obviously a little grey but ultimately down to in-house policy. Cue sheets should be filed and backend should be paid. The accounting is actually easier then you would think however the calculations and how you divide it is much more complicated. Dividing up streams and downloads via mechanical sales is significantly more trouble. Every single one of these contracts would likely and really should use the net amount minus operating expenses and marketing and advertising. Hosting online files becomes expensive. Marketing and advertising is competitive and also expensive. The administration fees to account and manage everything along with any salaries can also add up. That being said as Corporations who pay dividends know, there are many ways to create the formulas that result in a fair equitable system minus expenses and cost of doing business that would judicially pay a percentage of a subscription fee based on each composers contributions, ie their direct placements and the resulting revenues, and pay it out at the end of the year. The resulting administration work to accomplish, in most cases, is likely to erode any worthwhile money.

The business of course can be sold at some point, this can happen in any industry to anyone and effect any employee or contractor. The contract you signed into should state that the catalog be sold to an equal or greater Publisher and come with enough for you ensure that your sound recordings will be used to make money that you will be paid on, or at worst leveraged for opportunities and made available to be licensed.

The secret is in the contract. Plenty of Publishing contracts, where ultimately each library and broker is simply a Publisher at the end of the day, will include the right to leverage the catalog and the copyright therein for interest for current and future earnings. There should also be a clause giving a term that states what obligations and duties the Publisher etc. has in regards to seeking opportunities and ultimately monetizing or furthering the composers or writers sound recordings.

As said previously the biggest culprit, as in other areas of music, could be the desperation of the composer/writer and the sheer vastness of those willing to waive certain or all rights in an effort to their goals and desires.

If anyone changes their business model and fails to offer a new contract or opt-in clause, they are obviously caught out and in the wrong and liable. At worst they would have to remove your sound recordings from their catalog and lose the rights to use them unless you have agreed to some contract that states otherwise.

Cheers

[wetwest]

Hi,

What are your intentions with these “tracks”?

What is the arrangement you propose?

Thanks

[Author]

Posts