so anyone really know ?
is it everytime your tune is played somewhere , you get paid ? how much ?
if one you wrote is rerecorded/covered ?
if McCartney plays a Beatle song in concert , but MJ owns the catalog, does he pay ? $ ?
idle minds need to know..........
Well it depends on the lawyers the artist used to strike a deal. Some artists get nothing while others live forever off off one effort. publishers, producers and agents eat at the trough as well.
Imagine making or doing something, others liking it, and being paid for darn near forever (90 years) for it while controlling how it is used, not used, performed, or even talked about.
Copyright used to be for a short period of time so the public could make use of an effort (and artists would be obliged to keep producing) but Disney rewrote the book on that. Check out lawrence lessig at www.free-culture.cc/ to read how it really works today
Why buy used when you can build your own?
No he does not pay for live peformance.Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97
so anyone really know ?
if McCartney plays a Beatle song in concert , but MJ owns the catalog, does he pay ? $ ?
idle minds need to know..........
Here's your AC3/DVD copyright trivia for the day: A DVD has space for 8 discreet tracks of audio as well as digital "flags" to allow the author to designate how he would like for the audio to be interpreted. Typically, on an issue of a modern product, six of those tracks are used to contain the 5.1 surround mix. How the stereo mix comes to you is another matter.
It is possible to include on the DVD the stereo mix as the seventh and eighth tracks in the AC3 audio stream. It is also possible to set the "flags" in the AC3 stream so that the six 5.1 tracks (or any number) are premixed to create the stereo mix. Levels can be set for the premix. The problem is, each unit's decoder handles the decoding and mixing as a matter of the manufacturer's interpretation of the AC3 standard. Each manufacturer, and each of his products, can handle it differently. As a result, use of the fold-down facility is not a completely predictable method to produce a stereo mix.
Here's where copyright law enters the equation: Royalties must be paid for each discrete data stream within the AC3 stream. If you enclose both a 5.1 mix and a discrete stereo mix, two sets of royalties must be paid. If you enclose only one 5.1 mix and set the flags for it to be folded down for stereo, only one set of royalties must be paid. Your artist's or label's quality-vs.-profit philosophy will determine what you get.
Bob
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' "
Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring
THE MUSICIAN'S ROOM
About two years ago I saw a 60 Minutes interview with Sting and at the end of the interview they had a recap of Sting's careerer. They said he was still receiving $2500 a day from just the song "Every Breath You Take"! Take that one song and kind of figure all of the songs that he has done with the Police and solo. I'll take just one day of his royalty income!!!
Mike Caldwell
October 3, 2008
First Royalty Rates Set for Digital Music
By BEN SISARIO
In a decision closely watched by the music industry, a panel of federal judges who determine royalty rates for recordings ruled on Thursday to renew the current royalty rate for CDs and other physical recordings, while setting rates for the first time for downloads, ring tones and other services.
The ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board — a panel of three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress — applied strictly to mechanical royalties, which are paid to the songwriters and publishers of music, not the performers. The royalty is paid by the entity licensing the music (which varies, depending on the format of the recording).
Despite a range of proposals from music publishers, record labels and digital music sellers, the judges kept the rate for physical recordings at 9.1 cents for each track. The board set the same rate for permanent digital downloads, effectively equating the value of physical discs with downloads from retailers like Apple, through its iTunes store, and Amazon.com.
The judges also set for the first time a mechanical royalty rate for master tones, ring tones made from a snippet of music from a full recording. That rate is 24 cents. Until now, copyright holders had negotiated royalty payments with users.
The new rates will be in effect through 2012.
The new rates had been the subject of contention among publishers, record labels and retailers, each of which had lobbied the board for significant changes. Publishers, concerned about losing income as music sales decline, sought an increase of 66 percent for physical recordings and downloads, while the labels and retailers petitioned the judges to adopt a new model that would determine royalty payments as a percentage of wholesale revenue.
In one document submitted to the judges, an Apple executive threatened that a significant increase in royalty rates could force the company to shut down its iTunes music store, which has sold 5 billion songs since it opened five years ago but which operates with thin margins.
Not all of the novel proposals from music companies were rejected. Last week most of the interested lobbying groups, including the Recording Industry Association of America, the National Music Publishers’ Association and the Digital Media Association (which represents Apple, Amazon, Pandora Media and other companies), agreed to a plan to set royalty rates for streaming and other nonpermanent forms of music, like subscription services.
For those services, many of which depend on advertising, royalties would be tied to a percentage of revenue. The board has yet to ratify that plan, but the lobbying organizations expected it to pass.
Some in the industry warned that the measures might not be enough to stem the losses suffered since the rise of illegal file-sharing a decade ago. Jonathan Feinstein, a music lawyer at the Krasilovsky & Gross firm in New York, said the ruling introduced needed flexibility and certainty.
“Whether these developments will be sufficient to return the music industry to health is not clear,” Mr. Feinstein said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/bu...zmsKBp09dKGNJA
Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles
Ouch that stung methat did £2500.00 grand ouch. Now that’s a lot of money for royalties. I guess he banks part of then pays he’s taxes banks some more pays he’s taxes. Writes another song banks it pays he’s taxes.
And please I don’t what to know what George Lucas is getting for royalties ever time a lightsaber sound is heard in TV commercial or picture on the side of packet of crisps. Astronomical!!!!
Isn’t their royalties free download site for sound effects?
wtf! You’re kidding right!
Sometimes I read thread on different forum site (I can’t get the surround-EX to work it won’t light-up) Well try manually turning it on then!
So you’re paying a slight percentage towards that DVD and the flag encoding doesn’t work automatically like it was designed to do in the first place, what a con.
A few years ago when I had an interest in our family pub this guy comes in one day . Says hes from the PRS and wants £260 from us. Now this guy made the mistake of assuming that I was a turnip and not someone with more than a passing interest in music. So PRS stands for (the ) Performing Rights Society and it is a private limited company. Their stated aim is to recompense artists for the copyright exposure in public venues.
For example BGM in shopping malls pubs etc . There is also a chunk of that £260 that is meant to cover the lost revenue of for example one of our regulars bursting into song and unleashing a Johnny Cash number.
Now I did note that this fellah was driving a nice late model Beemer.
So I says to him you are getting nothing. And he says as I knew he would that it is the law. So here we have a private company underpinned by some legislation.
Why did I say no. If you were to go through all of our CD collection I doubt if you could find one single artist that has benefitted as a result of the activities of this outfit, a point that I made robustly to the rep.
I put it another way to him 'If you can find one artist in amongst that collection whom you can assert has received monies from your company, then I will give you your cheque '
So he spends about ten minutes flipping through --- Sonny Landreth 'who's that ? ' and so on.
Needless to say he went away empty handed but of course there followed an avalanche of threatening letters etc.
My idea of supporting musicians is to pay them to come and play , not to pay some con men with legal sanction to run around in nice cars and so on.
That sounds like a load of bollocks, someone wanting money for the above that I just read, what did you all do give him the 1000 yard stare and told him to piss off. LOL flipping though the CD’s “Sonny Landreth 'who's that” Well I’ve heard of Johnny Cash “the man in black” but this guy sounds like a right Muppet,flipping cheek.
Dispute Heats Up Over Proposed New Fees for Playing Songs on the Radio
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/bu...08royalty.html
For more than 70 years, royalty payments for air time have flowed to the songwriters and music publishers but not to the musicians or record companies. Now there is a renewed drive to revisit that arrangement, and in recent weeks the volume of the discussion has increased several decibels.
Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles
The NAB is fighting this BIG TIME! If the law as it is currently written most of the money will to record companies that are foreign owned like Sony & BGM. NOT TO THE ARTISTS!!!!
In today economy many radio stations are on the border line and many networks have filled for chapter 11.
Many stations would have to go bankrupt if they had to pay this new royalty tax.
Radio stations have made many artists famous and promoted their records for free most of the time. This is like biting the hand that feeds you1
We won't talk about payola, I have to sign a statement every year at the station saying that I have never accepted payola, I don't EVER get to decided what is played.
What should happen the artist getting together and fighting the record companies over the slave recording contracts. Back in the early 1960 Frank Sinatra started his own record company, because he was tired of the way they treated the artists!
The Artists make most of their money from touring.
Many time the record company forces the writer of the song to add the company as the co-writer of the song so the company can get most of the royalties!
So who is the bag guy, the radio stations or the record companies & their Henchmen the RIAA.
FYI: the federal trade commission has found the record companies and the RIAA guilty of price fixing!!!
Don't feel sorry for the record company, The slave contract says that the artist is just a hired hand and the company owns every note of music you played in the studio! Just like the construction worker on the damn!
Yes many artist get a raw deal, but it's not the radio stations fault!
If I was an artist nowadays I would just give my music away in this day and age its too hard to make money by selling CD's. You might as well just hope for a hit and go tour.
.
Labels to get, count them, 0.13 cents per play on Apple iRadio
If the entire human race plays a tune, it makes ... $11m
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06...lay_on_iradio/
The fruity firm will hand over just 0.13 cents per play, along with 15% of their advertising revenue, according to reports. If the record label manages to survive a year on those kind of wages, Apple will whack up the payment to a mammoth 0.14 cents per listen, with 19% of ad revenue on top.
As stingy as this sounds, it's still a good 0.01 of a cent better than rival Pandora's deal, which pays labels just 0.12 cents and about half as much royalties.
And Pandora quits after a while and asks "Are you still listening ? " , cause we have to pay for the music.
Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles
In the oldie days a songwriter would try to get the attention of a publisher. The publisher would in turn market the song to known performers, bands, show producers, etc. so you wanted a publisher with good connections. Given the hustle nature of this kind of enterprise it was likely the song writers could easily get exploited, if not outright shafted.
Around the turn of the century (twentieth) cooperatives were created to license the use of the creative work product and set guidelines for enforcing licensing. ASCAP and BMI were the biggies that I recall. You wanted to use a song you went to these two (there were others no doubt)who would collect a fee for the use of the song in performances, movies, whatever. Users such as radio stations might keep logs of how many times the song was played in a day. ASCAP and BMI would then split up the fees to the one or more credited authors. After their cut, of course. At one time there were people paid to listen to radio or attend public events, check on recording label's output, etc. to perform a form audit. They couldn't pretend to collect every cent from every use of a given song but they could rely on form of honor system to collect the fair share.
The Times article you sited mentions the effort to gain some similar protections for the musicians on various recorded pieces. I wasn't aware of this long-standing gripe of the performers that was championed by Sinatra, and others. In the post-war recording era I can understand their side of the story.
Somewhere along the line someone mentioned to the Beatles that they should write their own music. That was wise. On the other hand Brian Epstein was too quick to sell the publishing rights for the early hits for some upfront cash. Otherwise Sir Paul may have become richer than the Royals.
David F
San Jose
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
