Incorrect. You're not looking at the reason behind the reason. What is the point of "ownership" of a copyright??? Income stream. But there's a catch! That income stream is uncertain and not guaranteed. I think we all know this.
A more important Big Picture goal than retention of copyright ownership is to create favorable financial outcomes with the portfolio of songs a songwriter has. This means analyzing a song's potential income in relation to a songwriters marketing reach: Is the income non-existent? Is it pennies? Is it 1 million dollars?
If a songwriter has 20 songs, he has 20 uncertain streams of income. Basically, all the songwriter knows he's guaranteed is that he has 20 times zero... which is zero. If the songwriter can spare one song... (it doesn't have to be the songwriter's "best song" -- that's just AVID marketingspeak), it might make financial sense to make a business trade.
And you create hyperbolic statements of what AVID is doing to make it seem like a slam dunk decision to keep all rights to all songs at all times. That can't be the right answer. No way is that the perfect answer. There is no competent business manager that would recommend that in all possible scenarios cases. The only ones that would recommend that unwavering advice are those that are not affected by the bad financial decisions of the songwriter.
Not any stranger than the rigid idea that a songwriter "needs" to retain ownership of his song for $0.00. Seems a little sadistic to me.
Sure, every song is a "unique little snowflake" but not every song in a songwriter's portfolio is going to bring in a guaranteed $7200. This is the concept you don't seem to grasp.
It's more than likely going to have to be a very good song to win, the judging staff is more than competent, and if it's that good, it's a dumb deal. You're not going to win by entering one of your lesser efforts. If you know it's mediocre, they will too. They are not idiots.
There are obviously times when it is right to sign away your copyright...say, to a publisher, but in that case you are sharing the income the song may provide anyway. Here's a great example from the writer of the Cheers TV Theme:
" It depends who you are. If Lady Gaga were to write a TV theme today, she could no doubt demand to maintain ownership of every aspect of the song. But if you are a young and relatively unknown songwriter, as I was in 1982, then you are in no position to make those kinds of demands to a large Hollywood corporate entity like Paramount Pictures. Even though I had already written songs for major artists, I still had to sign over the publishing rights to the Cheers theme to Paramount. It was non-negotiable. "Do you want the song on the show? Then we own the publishing." It was as simple as that. I knew that meant that I would never control where and how the song would be used. (Not to mention that I would earn half as much as I would have if I had kept the copyright. Any time the publisher makes $1, the writer makes $1.) But certainly one would rather receive half the income from a hit TV theme than to own the whole song and make nothing.
Certainly it is important to be aware of the advantages of copyright ownership. And to never surrender it lightly. On the other hand, don't be stupid. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. If a TV or movie studio is offering to expose your work to millions of people- and the deal is all or nothing as far as the copyright is concerned….. hand it over and suck it up. I know many talented writers who refused to ever forfeit any piece of their ownership and, in almost every case, their career never took off."---Gary Portnoy.
"If you wanted to, could you have never worked again and lived a comfortable life off your Cheers royalties?
(Laughs) Yes, it has been a comfortable life."
And most importantly....
"First of all, a songwriter must never accept a lump sum. In fact I think the "buyouts" that used to happen a lot in the early days of pop music are illegal now. Songwriters earn royalties every time their song is played or sold. In the case of "public performances"- those on TV, radio, internet, etc- the size of the royalty will vary depending on whether a song is used on a major television network or on just one local station… and whether it is played on a radio station in a big city or on one in a sparsely populated rural area. There are performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) that track all of these various performances and collect fees on the writer's behalf. These monies are generally distributed on a quarterly basis. And in these modern times, more often than not, they are deposited directly into the writer's bank account."
These are the real situations where it would be boneheaded to insist on retaining all rights, not a "Win an HD Native System" contest.
It's more than likely going to have to be a very good song to win, the judging staff is more than competent, and if it's that good, it's a dumb deal. You're not going to win by entering one of your lesser efforts. If you know it's mediocre, they will too. They are not idiots.
As I mentioned earlier, the real-world outcomes over the last 50 years have already shown us what kind of business trade this will potentially be. You say the judging staff (working at AVID or on behalf of AVID) are not idiots. This means they would also know that no top-10 song (or even top-40 that I'm aware) will come from this type of contest. So they will acquire 100% copyright to a "mediocre" song because that's the only type of songs people will be entering. The top-tier most talented songwriters such as Diane Warren, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Diamond etc (and today's young equivalents) will have a "6th sense" to stay away from submitting their "best song" to these type of contests and pursue other avenues.
So, hundreds submit a bunch of "mediocre" songs of which AVID picks the best-of-the-mediocre. If AVID thinks they are getting the next Lady Gaga song for the price of one HD Native system, who is actually the fool? (That's a rhetorical question because as you said, AVID is not an idiot.)
Quote:
There are obviously times when it is right to sign away your copyright...say, to a publisher, but in that case you are sharing the income the song may provide anyway. ...
These are the real situations where it would be boneheaded to insist on retaining all rights, not a "Win an HD Native System" contest.
Well, finally we get to some nitty gritty business analysis of the situation. Not as much as I would have liked but we have to start somewhere.
As I mentioned earlier, the real-world outcomes over the last 50 years have already shown us what kind of business trade this will potentially be. You say judging staff (working at AVID or on behalf of AVID) are not idiots. This means they would also know that no top-10 song (or even top-40 that I'm aware) will come from this type of contest. So they will acquire 100% copyright to a "mediocre" song because that's the only type of songs people will be entering. The top-tier most talented songwriters such as Diane Warren, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Diamond etc (and today's young equivalents) will have a "6th sense" to stay away from submitting their "best song" to these type of contests and pursue other avenues.
So hundreds submit a bunch of "mediocre" songs of which AVID picks the best-of-the-mediocre. If AVID thinks they are getting the next Lady Gaga song for the price of one HD Native system, who is actually the fool? (That's a rhetorical question because as you said, AVID is not an idiot.)
Well, finally we get to some nitty gritty business analysis of the situation. Not as much as I would have liked but we have to start somewhere.
Yes, we have to start with a deal that doesn't screw the songwriter.
And btw...top tier songwriters were all once, unknown and unproven, just like the entrants to this contest.
Yes, we have to start with a deal that doesn't screw the songwriter.
If anything, the songwriter has a chance to "screw" AVID. Haha.
Well for certain types of mediocre songs, $7200 is better than $0. I find it impossible to believe that no song from any songwriter's portfolio can take advantage of $7200 over $0.
How many gearslutz members have earned more than $7200 in royalties on one song? There must be at least one member where it would be a smart deal. Do you say this is impossible?
Quote:
And btw...top tier songwriters were all once, unknown and unproven, just like the entrants to this contest.
"Cheers"
The exposure from AVID contest winner is not the same magnitude as "Cheers". Therefore, people will submit songs accordingly. How do we know people will do this? Because the Billboard charts for the last 50 years have shown it to be true.
I have no fears that AVID will pull a svengali and generate a multiplatinum single from this contest winner. There are some invisible checks & balances that seem to prevent that from happening. On the other hand, sweet talking record producers or managers (Elvis's manager) are very good at extracting copyright concessions that screw the songwriter. I don't think the AVID contest is the menace to the songwriting society as it's been made out to be.
Basically, submit one of the songs you feel won't generate $7000 in income to AVID and if it wins, get $7000. Win-win. The songwriter can "screw over" AVID if he wants to frame it that way.
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks
...Alexa, with all due respect, publishers and record companies are at least in theory working to help your song become a success so both parties benefit and they are sharing ownership, not asking for all of it. TH
I concur in your view that, as stated above, in theory, record labels and other such agencies are working toward a mutally benifical relationship between the parties involved in an agreement.
However, it would seem that where we begin to encounter departing views on this matter, is upon how we interpert the relationship and the intentions of the parties in the instant contest.
I don't see a fundamental difference between the central goal of parties of the contest and those whom would enter into an agreement with, for example, a publishing company or record label.
Surely, there are many, many way's differences are present between two such agreements.
However, I fail to see how in either one both parties are not seeking to enter a mutually benifical relationship.
What's in it for Avid/Abbey Road to put this contest on? Why would they offer to activily promote an unknown artist at their own expense?
Assuming they considered those questions and found the price was the rights to one song - How does that differ in any way then the multiude of 'work for hire' agreements entered each day where the songwriter signs all their rights away for an upfront mutually agreed sum?
You may very well disagree with a songwriter releasing their rights upon your own personal principles -
But you are not, in my view articulating any considerable distinction between this, and nearly all forms of agreements which parties enter as common practice in the music bussiness.
Can you offer some better examples of how this differs to a degree which makes it 'predatory'?
Honestly, I may not be seeing the matter properly - I respectfully ask your help so I may perhaps see it differently.
"I don't see a fundamental difference between the central goal of parties of the contest and those whom would enter into an agreement with, for example, a publishing company or record label."
In a publishing deal, the writer still makes half of any future profit on the song.
"How does that differ in any way then the multiude of 'work for hire' agreements entered each day where the songwriter signs all their rights away for an upfront mutually agreed sum? "
First, because the songs submitted are not "works for hire"....but Avid is asking them to be converted into such. They were not written for Avid, as a normal work for hire is, to a client's specific requirements.
Secondly, when agreeing to a work for hire, composers will often ask for more money than is represented by the prizes offered in this competition, as they know they will not make another dime from the composition in royalties. This doesn't really bother them because....
Third...."works for hire" are generally commercials, ads, and sometimes scores for specific products/films, not songs per se, compositions that the writers wouldn't be interested in using anyway since they were composed for such specific end products, although there are exceptions....such as the example below.
Some writers are smart enough not to even agree to do a commercial as a work for hire. When Paul Williams wrote a local bank commercial showing newlyweds getting their first loan, he was sure as hell lucky he didn't sign a "work for hire." The commercial later turned into the song "We've Only Just Begun." Again, using the philosophy of some up here, Williams could have said "Well, gee, I need the 5000 the agency is offering for this spot, I better just agree. Probably nothing else will every happen to this song."
Fortunately for him that he didn't think that way, it has made him millions. Someone must have advised him not to give his songs away without thinking.
"Can you offer some better examples of how this differs to a degree which makes it 'predatory'?
If Avid wanted to appear fair, they would do what a publisher does...they would ask for the copyright to the song and share any future royalties with the composer.
They want ALL of the rights, with no real reason to do so, though it has been suggested that is what they "need" to recoup what I assume some feel is the enormous cost of an HD Native system.
I do want to conclude this as we all have our own opinions, but I want to conclude by reiterating that I am hardly an Avid hater. I would not have been able to do the work I have done over the years, without Pro Tools, and though I have gripes about certain things they have done in the past, they are not the enemy.
My comments are focused on this particular venture only.
Again, using the philosophy of some up here, Williams could have said "Well, gee, I need the 5000 the agency is offering for this spot, I better just agree. Probably nothing else will every happen to this song."
Fortunately for him that he didn't think that way, it has made him millions. Someone must have advised him not to give his songs away without thinking.
Yes, nice story but your flaw is in cherry picking the "winners" to try and prove your point.
You neglect to list all the songs that get $0.00 which overwhelmingly outnumber the winners such as "We've Only Just Begin." This does not seem to be a factor in your argument at all. Why this blind spot, I have no idea.
The total picture of the rare winners ($1 million+) plus very common losers ($0.00) must be weighed together in assessing whether $5000 guaranteed to give up ownership makes sense.
It's good to have principles as a songwriter and to understand the value of copyrights but each decision to retain-or-sell has a cost/benefit and risk/reward ratio.
To use your lottery ticket analogy earlier... if someone buys 10 lottery tickets ($1 each) and as he walks out the grocery store, a man in a parking lot offers $5000 for one of those tickets, the smart thing is to always say "no?" That's crazy.
Payoff scenarios:
$1 --> $10,000,000 jackpot (rare)
$1 --> $0.00 (very common)
$1 --> $5000 (not too common but not always a bad deal)
Quote:
If Avid wanted to appear fair, they would do what a publisher does...they would ask for the copyright to the song and share any future royalties with the composer.
Then there's no need to bother giving the songwriter a piece of gear that he can sell for cash on ebay.
Quote:
They want ALL of the rights, with no real reason to do so, though it has been suggested that is what they "need" to recoup what I assume some feel is the enormous cost of an HD Native system.
I'm not claiming at all that AVID will "recoup" the the HD Native system with the song. What I'm saying is that somebody at AVID feels that their threshold to give away that gear is ownership of the song. Recouping costs 1-for-1 may not enter the picture. AVID may not get any money from the song that recovers cost of the gear given away.
I've seen Yamaha, Roland, etc sponsor song contests in years past and I'm not aware of any that have gone platinum. Did Yamaha also acquire complete ownership of a song like AVID wants to do? If yes, so what? They got 100% of $0.00 in royalties. Had the songwriter kept the copyright, they likely also would've got $0.00 income generated. But the songwriter got some real gear... maybe a Yamaha synth or something. Looks like the songwriter "won" and Yamaha "lost". Why do we allow this to happen? It's a crime!
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks
"I don't see a fundamental difference between the central goal of parties of the contest and those whom would enter into an agreement with, for example, a publishing company or record label."
In a publishing deal, the writer still makes half of any future profit on the song.
"How does that differ in any way then the multiude of 'work for hire' agreements entered each day where the songwriter signs all their rights away for an upfront mutually agreed sum? "
First, because the songs submitted are not "works for hire"....but Avid is asking them to be converted into such. They were not written for Avid, as a normal work for hire is, to a client's specific requirements.
Secondly, when agreeing to a work for hire, composers will often ask for more money than is represented by the prizes offered in this competition, as they know they will not make another dime from the composition in royalties. This doesn't really bother them because....
Third...."works for hire" are generally commercials, ads, and sometimes scores for specific products/films, not songs per se, compositions that the writers wouldn't be interested in using anyway since they were composed for such specific end products, although there are exceptions....such as the example below.
Some writers are smart enough not to even agree to do a commercial as a work for hire. When Paul Williams wrote a local bank commercial showing newlyweds getting their first loan, he was sure as hell lucky he didn't sign a "work for hire." The commercial later turned into the song "We've Only Just Begun." Again, using the philosophy of some up here, Williams could have said "Well, gee, I need the 5000 the agency is offering for this spot, I better just agree. Probably nothing else will every happen to this song."
Fortunately for him that he didn't think that way, it has made him millions. Someone must have advised him not to give his songs away without thinking.
"Can you offer some better examples of how this differs to a degree which makes it 'predatory'?
If Avid wanted to appear fair, they would do what a publisher does...they would ask for the copyright to the song and share any future royalties with the composer.
They want ALL of the rights, with no real reason to do so, though it has been suggested that is what they "need" to recoup what I assume some feel is the enormous cost of an HD Native system.
TH
While much of what you wrote may be true - It did nothing to answer the question that I asked.
As I said earlier I can understand why you, or anyone else may find the release of a songwriter's rights to be against one's personsl principle's.
However, the question I posed sought a fairly simple and dispassionate answer - How do the terms of this contest differ in a fundamental way from other contracts in the music business? (please read "fundamental" with emphasis)
Your personal thoughts regarding regarding the "fairness" or the terms being discussed has been dually noted, and respected.
However, your feelings about the terms in question is wholely irrelavant to weather or not the terms are, themselves, "reasonable" or "fair".
Someone may very well find themselves with song(s) they have written and have little or no outlet to have them heard, let alone considered in the manner which Avid/Abby Road are offering in this contest.
Such a person may indeed have even tried and exhausted more traditional avenues for marketing, placing, or otherwise being noticed, to no avail.
Another may concievebly be at an impasse as their current equipment may be stifling there ability to create newer and better material.
Yet another, may have all they really need in terms of gear and live a comfortable life without the need for income from being a career songwriter. - But, they write songs as a hobby and want to compete simply for fun.
This contest offers an oppertunity that otherwise is not present to the people in situations above as well as many others.
People like those above could reasonably conclude that the terms are fair and in my view quite reasonably wish to participate.
Or they may share your principle's and rightfully decline.
The terms here even allow for a winner whom was unaware that upon winning the competion they would have to forgo the rights to their material and politely decline the prize(s) and retain the rights to their song.
Your arguments suggesting that the terms here, and in other forms of engagment where a transfer of intellecual rights are at issue are unfair in a roundabout way suggest that the right of copywrite somehow overshadow an individuals right's to contract. (Which would likley lead the copyright system to utterly collapse upon itself.)
Try looking at what's at issue here and without imposing you are not imposing your own principles - And simply explain how there is a distinction in the core of the terms.
In it's essence - How is an agreement where two informed parties entered by two both stand to benefit and both stand to give something up is unfair? - Let alone predatory.
To me it's quite a simple question - But, I may well be wrong. If you could answer the question directly above maybe I would better be able to see your perspective.
"Yes, nice story but your flaw is in cherry picking the "winners" to try and prove your point."
The fact that there are "winners" is my point.
And what is the significance of that datapoint if you repeatedly hide the "losers" from the decision analysis?
Are you saying that trading a $1 lottery ticket for immediate guaranteed $5000 is a bad idea just because there were $10,000,000 winners in the past? What's the flaw in that analysis?
Quote:
"It's good to have principles as a songwriter and to understand the value of copyrights ...."
Yep, and that's why it's puzzling that you do not.
To understand the value of copyrights, one has to not overstate the winners and understate the losers. The endgame is not the ownership of all copyrights. There is a larger goal here. Only the people who are not hurt by the songwriters financial choices are can afford to advise folks to never give one song away out of their portfolio of songs for gear under any circumstances. This is a misunderstanding of copyright portfolio strategy.
There's a disconnect here too about not valuing copyrights. Very much like the recurring conversation on here where folks tell anyone giving away any of their music that they don't value it. Meanwhile, the Majors give away promo stuff like it's a hot potato, and they're ALL about the money.
We COULD all just realize that there are other valid viewpoints in this world besides our own when it comes to exposure vs ownership... or any other topic for that matter.
Or we COULD take every single topic that comes up in every subforum as an opportunity for a winner-takes-all death-match wherein we constantly insult everyone who doesn't share every opinion we formed by living in our particular house on our particular block in our particular neighborhood.
... aw, screw it. That'd probably be like watching a reality show about a well-adjusted family that gets along.
To value a 100% of nothing above all else is to get an A in Math, but an F in Philosophy.
__________________ .
PRODUCTION GOAL: Blend ridiculously diverse musical influences into a viable pop signature sound that works for top 40 radio, clubs, earbuds, computer speakers, car stereos, submarine galleys, Australian walkabouts, Turkish prisons, skydiving simulators, volcanic craters, anechoic chambers, Martian discotheques, and all other known and unknown playback scenarios in perpetuity throughout the universe. - AINT NOBODY
We COULD all just realize that there are other valid viewpoints in this world besides our own when it comes to exposure vs ownership... or any other topic for that matter.
I have no problem with opposing viewpoints of retaining or giving away copyrights. Everyone has their personal principles and either position is valid.
The problem is distorting the marketplace for songs to justify why those copyrights should always be retained.
If someone wants to keep every copyright for all his good, bad, and ugly songs because each one is his special "baby" and he wants to take them to his grave, that's perfectly valid justification. However, to justify it by presenting a half-assed picture of the true marketplace for songs (especially the type of songs that would be submitted to this contest) is ridiculous.
The emotional justification for keeping the song copyright is valid justification.
The incomplete marketing analysis is not valid justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
My view is that less restrictive terms would attract better songs and increase the promotional value of their contest, which is presumably the point.
This is exactly right. Because the AVID terms are what they are, the situation basically "polices" itself. AVID will end up getting the type of songs that are worthy of their all-encompassing demands. <-- Interpret that for good or bad.
"However, the question I posed sought a fairly simple and dispassionate answer - How do the terms of this contest differ in a fundamental way from other contracts in the music business? (please read "fundamental" with emphasis)"
I answered your question quite specifically and gave real world examples in my previous post. Please re-read, or perhaps someone else can further expound on the matter.
"Another may concievebly (sic) be at an impasse as their current equipment may be stifling there ability to create newer and better material. "
No amount of equipment will stifle your ability to write a song. Ask the thousands of songwriters who work on acoustic guitars or pianos, or simply wake up with a melody in the head, as I have done many times along with many others (see "McCartney:'Yesterday').
"In it's essence - How is an agreement where two informed parties entered by two both stand to benefit and both stand to give something up is unfair? - Let alone predatory."
Two informed parties enter agreements everyday at pawn shops all over the world, where the person pawning an item receives nothing near the object's worth in exchange for immediately relief of a cash shortage. This does not change the fact that the pawn shop takes advantage of the customer's situation by offering him pennies on the dollar.
This is the essence of a predatory business transaction.
We must agree to disagree at this point. Thanks for the discussion.
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks
"However, the question I posed sought a fairly simple and dispassionate answer - How do the terms of this contest differ in a fundamental way from other contracts in the music business? (please read "fundamental" with emphasis)"
I answered your question quite specifically and gave real world examples in my previous post. Please re-read, or perhaps someone else can further expound on the matter.
"Another may concievebly (sic) be at an impasse as their current equipment may be stifling there ability to create newer and better material. "
No amount of equipment will stifle your ability to write a song. Ask the thousands of songwriters who work on acoustic guitars or pianos, or simply wake up with a melody in the head, as I have done many times along with many others (see "McCartney:'Yesterday').
"In it's essence - How is an agreement where two informed parties entered by two both stand to benefit and both stand to give something up is unfair? - Let alone predatory."
Two informed parties enter agreements everyday at pawn shops all over the world, where the person pawning an item receives nothing near the object's worth in exchange for immediately relief of a cash shortage. This does not change the fact that the pawn shop takes advantage of the customer's situation by offering him pennies on the dollar.
This is the essence of a predatory business transaction.
We must agree to disagree at this point. Thanks for the discussion.
TH
With all do respect, I am truly puzzled why you cannot proffer an answer to a question without offering examples, which not only further confuse the issue - But are not even close to being on point to the disscussion.
I am sorry, but you did not answer my question either in my previous post nor the last post.
Yes, you offered far a field examples which were almost entierly incongruent to the issue, let alone the question.
And your latest reply, where I framed my question as clearly as one could you offered a response that made a comparison to pawn agreements?
Surely you jest, as a pawn agreement shares, at best only the word 'agreement' in contrast to nearly any other form of agreement based upon very specific laws which govern the pawn bussiness (which vary on a state by state basis)
Seemingly, you used this example as a means to not answer the question; but also to extend your opinion that you feel the contest is 'predatory'. (Which you have made perfectly on numerous occasions.)
Normally, I would not feel the need to write a somewhat 'harsh' post in reply to someone with a differing point of view -
But, frankly your replies to respectful and well reasoned questions, by both myself and my impression the replies you have offered thus far to Jason West - Impart a disrespectful and condesending tone, in my opinion.
Upon reading back through thread many of us have pointed toward what the actual law is, and shown clear factual examples and parallels to similar contests to the one at issue here.
Considering that we have done so - I find it quite vexing that you would respond as though we have not a clue about the law or issues related to the music business which are present here.
On that note, I will happily agree to disagree with you (and have been willing to do so from the outset.)
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
Avid have every right to set the terms of their contest and we have every right not to submit our songs.
My view is that less restrictive terms would attract better songs and increase the promotional value of their contest, which is presumably the point.
I just wanted to highlight your post and thank you for correctly and clearly showing the main issue here which has for some reason been rather ellusive.
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
