Login / Register
 
Avid Abbey Road competition
New Reply
Subscribe
ronaldroy
Thread Starter
#1
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #1
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 165

Thread Starter
ronaldroy is offline
Avid Abbey Road competition

Get Discovered—Send Your Best Song to Avid and Abbey Road Studios

Does anyone else have a problem with this:

7. Grant of Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant Sponsor, its subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and advertising and promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store, copy, transmit, publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest. Upon Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth above.
#2
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #2
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldroy View Post
Get Discovered—Send Your Best Song to Avid and Abbey Road Studios

Does anyone else have a problem with this:

7. Grant of Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant Sponsor, its subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and advertising and promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store, copy, transmit, publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest. Upon Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth above.
They are truly out of their mind.

TH
#3
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #3
Lives for gear
 
aTelecine-Lex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 538

aTelecine-Lex is offline
I can understand that some people may indeed have a problem with the terms that are required as part of the competition.

However, those who have any concerns are obviously not forced to enter - In my view, it's not really a problematic issue.

Other similar competition's use almost identical language in their respective agreements for entry.

Principally the purpose for the companie(s) who sponser such competitions seek to serve two distinct purposes.

Chiefly, the concessions made by those whom enter competion are to a great degree nessacary for the competion to take place.

For example, where, as here, the competion seeks to promote the future success of those whom enter - It must have the rights (granted by the partcipants) to freely copy and distribute etc. the material submitted for the purpose(s) of the competition.

Seemingly, agreements like the one at issue here are something of an informed trade-off. Where those who enter lose the sole right (or near complete rights) of their submitted work to gain something of agreed value should they win.

And perhaps those who win, would stand to gain more signifigantaly by way of future works, which they would solely benefit from by way of the exposure of the contest.

For some, such a trade-off may be unacceptable. For others, it may be one which they are willing to accept.

I am not sure what harm there is in the company sponsering the competition to offer the choice to those who may be interested.

Best,
Alexa
__________________
|<(e)>|<9>|
#4
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #4
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
Requesting submitters to allow the unlimited use of their material for the sole purpose of promoting the contest itself is understandable.

Requiring the complete ownership of the song ventures into the land of the predatory, and is completely unnecessary.

TH
Quote
1
#5
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #5
Lives for gear
 
aTelecine-Lex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 538

aTelecine-Lex is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
Requesting submitters to allow the unlimited use of their material for the sole purpose of promoting the contest itself is understandable.

Requiring the complete ownership of the song ventures into the land of the predatory, and is completely unnecessary.

TH
I can understand your view - And, I agree that it may ask for too much for some.

However, as I mentioned most of these sorts of contests or competitions ask for pretty much the same concessions by the participants.

While I agree your view is valid, I think to say the practice is "predatory" may be a bit strong.

Respectfully,
Alexa
#6
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #6
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 294

hypetrain is offline
"Hey guys, send me all your best songs. I'll make you famous, promise. Also I own your songs after you send them to me. But it's a great deal. You want to be famous, right? Just sign here, don't worry, it'll be fine."

Yes all of these contests do the same thing. Which is why they are ridiculous. Maybe not "predatory" by default, but notice how they always make sure to have it in the contract that they can go ahead and be predators if and when they so choose to. It's just ridiculous.

Everyone from schools to remix contests seem to always make sure that you sign all your rights away to them for the work you produce. Just because it is SOP doesn't make it reasonable. I understand that they need to protect themselves. But if they need to do that by tying me to a table bent over and naked, sorry I'm not interested.

/edit

I heard a pro songwriter address the question of "What if they steal my song" by saying "Well, were you only going to write one good song?" And that makes sense. It's just the culture of submission that this kind of contract insists on that I find offensive, personally.
Quote
1
#7
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by aTelecine-Lex View Post
I can understand your view - And, I agree that it may ask for too much for some.

However, as I mentioned most of these sorts of contests or competitions ask for pretty much the same concessions by the participants.

While I agree your view is valid, I think to say the practice is "predatory" may be a bit strong.

Respectfully,
Alexa
The fact that some other contests may have similar demands should not be an excuse, but instead should offer the opportunity to rise above the crowd and be the ones to promote something that doesn't favor the promoter. Obviously, the potential rewards of a hit song, should one emerge, leaves the holders of the contest with quite a pretty penny, while the composer gets a system worth zilch in comparison and a veritable pat on the back.

This takes advantage of the hopes and dreams of gullible writers at the expense of what is obviously in their best interests, a situation most certainly predatory by definition.

Why not say " Turn over all the rights to your work and maybe win an HD Native System!" on the main page of the ad?

TH
Quote
1
#8
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #8
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 294

hypetrain is offline
Alexa, I understand your comments were only trying to explore the reasoning behind this type of contract. And I'm not trying to shutter discussion with my ranting. Nor am I directing my rant at you or anyone else. I am just so sick of this "Oh but it's perfectly legal" tendency of law school vampires, roaming from house to house looking for any remaining human survivor to suck blood from, that I can't even restrain myself.

Of course what these companies all hope for is that 15 years from now one of those songwriters, through a lifelong struggle, will get one of those songs on the radio. Then they can swoop in with their database of ill acquired (but totally legal) copyrights and unleash a locust horde of lawyers to replenish the war chest for the next round. It's not just a CYA tactic. They're actively pursuing long term thievery operations IMO. Why would anyone trust a company that is thinking so far ahead about how to screw over as many people as possible? I just find it truly repulsive and even more so because this type of behavior is at epidemic levels throughout our society now. /rant over
Quote
1
#9
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
aTelecine-Lex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 538

aTelecine-Lex is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
The fact that some other contests may have similar demands should not be an excuse, but instead should offer the opportunity to rise above the crowd and be the ones to promote something that doesn't favor the promoter. Obviously, the potential rewards of a hit song, should one emerge, leaves the holders of the contest with quite a pretty penny, while the composer gets a system worth zilch in comparison and a veritable pat on the back.

This takes advantage of the hopes and dreams of gullible writers at the expense of what is obviously in their best interests, a situation most certainly predatory by definition.

Why not say " Turn over all the rights to your work and maybe win an HD Native System!" on the main page of the ad?

TH
To reaffirm, I can understand your objections as well as the similar objections shared by others in this thread.

I personally would not be inclined to participate in contests like the one at issue here (for several different reasons).

The consession of the intellectual property rights in this, or any context for that matter, is a very important point for a songwriter to give considerable thought to.

The reading of the legalize does indeed leave one with the impression that there may well be something untoward afoot.

I think most of us can agree that almost any legalize can, and often does impart such an impression.

In some cases, the worst reading of the terms of a contract or agreement is true - While other times, what may seem to be "predatory", is actually nessacary for the function of the endevour itself.

When I cited that terms such as those found at issue here are common for these sorts of contests - My reason for doing so was to bolster the point that, for a multitude of reasons, such terms are required for the company sponsering the competition to meet their part of the agreement.

Were such terms not in place, those whom wish to participate in the contest would, in fact, be hindered by their absence.

For the sake of argument, let's presume that the company in question here is conducting this competion in good faith -

How could they, or the participants, expect that the company could conduct the contest in the way they propose to?

Viewing mainly first portion of the terms - There is no reasonable way they could.

Speaking to the latter terms of the agreement, where the terms layout a perpetual transfer of ownership and the rights of using any work(s) submitted by the participants - I agree that if read on it's own - seemingly appears to be benifical solely toward the company.

However, it seems evident that among other things, this is where the compromise, or a sort of "trade-off" takes place.

Persumably, some people will find, upon careful consideration of what consessions are required for entry - That the risks imposed by the concessions made, and the trade-off that becomes manifest as a result - Are less important to them then the potential reward(s) they may aquire should they win - Or any rewards from the exposure of taking part in the contest itself.

Going back to the matter of similar agreements (in some cases dependent upon the situation TOS agreements) I mentioned earlier -

There has been fairly considerable debate regarding not only these sort of music specfic contests - But terms that apply in places one would not typically consider that their would be any issue of transfer of one's intellecual property.

However, it occurs millions of times per day on many different platforms and services on the internet.

Most people make such transfers completely unknowingly as the legal terms they agreed to were burried in a 200 page TOS agreement for a service they likely either, did not read at all, or if they did could not reasonably have been expected to understand, given the very dense legal language.

I find it likely that there is a greater potential for 'predatory' activity in that area where those transfering IP rights where there was no resonable reason to believe there was an issue -

Opposed to a contest like the one the OP mentioned in this thread as I think it would be logical to make an informed choice to transfer their rights considering the very nature of the contest.

(Pardon the long ramble it is fairly late and I got lost in the tangent)

Repectfully,
Alexa
#10
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #10
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 82

sunland records is offline
Just enter a song that's "worth" the prices and it's a good deal (should you win). You probably wouldn't want to enter a major artist's song, of course, but then again the competition is called "Get discovered", so...
#11
10th February 2013
Old 10th February 2013
  #11
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,734

narcoman is offline
I've read a lot of objections to this recently.

There are a number of points to make...


If you don't like it, don't enter.

As mentioned above, why sweat it? Do you intend to write only one good song? This might be the trade off that works for you (I doubt it though).

If you WIN they get the rights... However, I doubt they would be able to enforce it in law. If it DID garner some further industry interest no publisher would condone the set up.

So.... It's bald men and combs and it's not legally enforceable. Everyone is making such a big shout, song and dance about it I wonder if it has more to do with the Avid connection..... yknow, the way people get all indignant about the company....
#12
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #12
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
I've read a lot of objections to this recently.

There are a number of points to make...


If you don't like it, don't enter.

As mentioned above, why sweat it? Do you intend to write only one good song? This might be the trade off that works for you (I doubt it though).

If you WIN they get the rights... However, I doubt they would be able to enforce it in law. If it DID garner some further industry interest no publisher would condone the set up.

So.... It's bald men and combs and it's not legally enforceable. Everyone is making such a big shout, song and dance about it I wonder if it has more to do with the Avid connection..... yknow, the way people get all indignant about the company....
That's like saying no one should gripe if they see a store selling SM57s for 2500.00 each. You could say "Then don't buy them."

What does have to do with whether or not the store is acting responsibly?

And..."not enforceable?" The contract would be as binding as any other, if you relinquished your rights in writing and were over 21. Why wouldn't it be?

BTW... not an AVID basher...I'm up here defending them most of the time as I've been using PT since 442 days. AVID, pop music, and U87s...I'm always for the underdogs lol

TH
#13
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #13
Lives for gear
 
scruffydog's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: North London.UK
Posts: 1,747

scruffydog is offline
Get discovered..and get screwed...Welcome to the music business!

):Pardon the long ramble it is fairly late and I got lost in the Bullshit

respectfully....
asswipe
#14
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #14
Gear addict
 
Tim Abraham's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 473

Tim Abraham is offline
Predatory is the perfect word for this.

It is unlikely that all or most of the entrants at the point in their career that they would enter a songwriting contest would read or understand the significance of the legal language.

It is completely unnecessary for a competition like this to require these terms, unlike what aTelecine-Lex says. It is one thing to require a composer to grant a license to exploit the work in any form (so that the competition sponsors are not left with a song that they cannot distribute, stream, etc), which is covered in the first 2/3 of paragraph 7 above, but it is something completely different to require that the composer assign copyright in exchange for the prize.

The world is too complicated to pawn off responsibility solely on the consumer/contest entrant/end user/etc - it is not reasonable to expect an individual to understand the significance of specialized legal jargon in this case. Nor is there any reasonable defence of the requirement to sign away copyright - it clearly takes advantage of people chasing a dream. "Then just don't enter" excuses the greedy behaviour of the competition sponsors.

And, by the way, the phrase, "do they only expect to write one good song" is ridiculous. I know a score of talented songwriters who have written many "good songs", but almost all of them are hoping to write at least one song that makes a bunch of money. Many, many, great songwriters won't write any of those, very few will be lucky enough to write one.

Shame on Avid, shame on Abbey Road.
__________________
www.timothyabraham.com
#15
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #15
Gear nut
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 95

Karl_Lohninger is offline
The John Lennon Songwriting contest i.e. does not have language like that. The argument that because many 'contests' do the same as the Avid/Abbey Road therefore....just trust the universe and take it easy is incredibly lopsided.
#16
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #16
Lives for gear
 
aTelecine-Lex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Cambridge, MA (For School) NY, or FL otherwise
Posts: 538

aTelecine-Lex is offline
Tim,

Respectfully, I ask you to reconsider my earlier post(s), as I feel that perhaps you may have somewhat overlooked how I addressed some matters that you seem to take issue with.

In part that may have been my fault, as I was playing a devil's advocate to a degree - in order to understand the reasoning behind the terms at issue.

To be clear, I did make a distinction between the first portion of the terms, and the latter terms, which, it would appear would compel a transfer of the copyright of a work submitted to the sponsers of the contest, in exchange for the prizes or reward to the winner of the contest.

Seemingly, we agree that the first portion of terms are for the most part required for the contest to be able to function as presumably both parties want it to.

Controversy arises mostly to the latter portion of the terms; and perhaps for good reason.

However as I stated, this is where the "trade-off" occurs.

Understandably, many may find that this trade-off is too heavily weighted toward the companies involved - But, as with nearly any contract - Reason would suggest that both sides should,in some way benefit from the agreement.

Setting aside occasions where unlawful terms that would void an agreement - And persuming both parties wish to engage in this sort of affair - I am not sure where the problem lies.

You mentioned that perhaps the legal language would be too difficult for some to understand - I point which I also addressed; and in many cases I agree whole-heartedly that often that is an issue that is troublesome.

However, I think the terms presented here are not difficult for the majority of potentinal participants to understand. In fact, they seem to very clear.

We may part agreement on that point - If so, I would urge you to read the terms in agreements for nearly any service which allows owners of IP to upload or otherwise distribute content.

Likely, you will find that the many are far more complex for even those profeciant at reading legal agreements.
It may be unfortunate that we live in a world where the terms of service for something as seemingly simple as being a mere user of Apple's App store requires the end user to agree to a 60 to 80 page TOS agreement - However, we do.

People should realize that if they do not understand the terms of agreement regarding, as here, their future career - They need to seek help in understanding such terms and if that is not possible they should simply not enter any such agreement.

As far as this contest being labeled 'predatory' I still find that to be overstating the matter. Likley this contest is far less 'predatory' then the terms of many major managment, recording, or publishing contracts. Let alone the various and numerous other sorts of agreements that many people encounter everyday.

Best Regards,
Alexa
#17
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #17
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,734

narcoman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Abraham View Post
but it is something completely different to require that the composer assign copyright in exchange for the prize.
I have no opinion it as really, it's only one song. Id like to point something out - they can put this in an agreement all they like but it is not legally enforceable at all. If you win just go to another publisher or put the it in a library or whatever. Nothing will happen and you won't have broken any rules. We can whine all we like about what they've written in their competition rules but it has no support in law in the. Uk, USA or pretty much any other modern state with music admin.

As for legal jargon, no lawyer drafted this. Too ambiguous. I could tear a hole in it without even getting out of my pyjamas.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Abraham View Post
"Then just don't enter" excuses the greedy behaviour of the competition sponsors.
Welcome to the world! From Apple computers to Sky TV to Kit Kat bars. Consumerism is always a con!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Abraham View Post

And, by the way, the phrase, "do they only expect to write one good song" is ridiculous. I know a score of talented songwriters who have written many "good songs", but almost all of them are hoping to write at least one song that makes a bunch of money. Many, many, great songwriters won't write any of those, very few will be lucky enough to write one.

Shame on Avid, shame on Abbey Road.
Sure. Enter the competition, win and come and see me. I'll happily go up against Avid and Abbey Road.
#18
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #18
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
"As far as this contest being labeled 'predatory' I still find that to be overstating the matter. Likley this contest is far less 'predatory' then the terms of many major managment, recording, or publishing contracts. Let alone the various and numerous other sorts of agreements that many people encounter everyday."

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.

Insisting on surrender of copyright in exchange for some gear that will be extinct in two years if not sooner, while there is at least the possibility of your song becoming a hit that becomes the gift that keeps on giving–as it were– for heaven knows how long...is hardly a deal.

Unlikely? Sure...but so is winning the lottery, and yet there are winners weekly.

I still haven't seen any logical reason for why Avid/Abbey Road would need to outright own the rights to a song other than "because other people have done it in the past." Again, if it is not "predatory" and does not take advantage of the contest entrant, why bury the requirement in a clause? It should be on page one, and Avid/AR should have nothing to bury.

"Surrender all rights to your song and possibly win an HD Native System!".....

On second thought, that wouldn't play very well I suppose.

TH
#19
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (USA)
Posts: 1,741

Jason West is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
"Surrender all rights to your song and possibly win an HD Native System!".....
It looks like you are editorializing their position -- somewhat incorrectly. I thought it was more like:
"Grant an unlimited license to your song to enter and possibly win HD Native System."

...and that's followed by...

"Surrender all rights to your song, if and only if you actually win."

The concepts of "granting unlimited license" and "giving up all publishing rights" are 2 different things and happens under 2 different triggering circumstances.
#20
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #20
Lives for gear
 
pinkheadedbug's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,535

pinkheadedbug is online now
They're both crap. The normal way this is handled in other arenas (such as photography and screenwriting) is that you grant them necessary reproduction rights for promotional purposes connected with the contest. I've never heard of surrendering all rights if you win. It's bullsh1t and no self-respecting songwriter would sign away rights like that. I'm surprised that the relevant songwriters' associations haven't weighed in on it.
#21
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #21
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
It looks like you are editorializing their position -- somewhat incorrectly. I thought it was more like:
"Grant an unlimited license to your song to enter and possibly win HD Native System."

...and that's followed by...

"Surrender all rights to your song, if and only if you actually win."

The concepts of "granting unlimited license" and "giving up all publishing rights" are 2 different things and happens under 2 different triggering circumstances.
Yep that's fine. Let's put yours on the front lol

TH
#22
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (USA)
Posts: 1,741

Jason West is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug View Post
The normal way this is handled in other arenas ... is that you grant them necessary reproduction rights for promotional purposes connected with the contest.

And that's what this contest also says:
", and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest."

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
Yep that's fine. Let's put yours on the front lol
Well, there's no need to further sensationalize what that contest rules are about. We can just take them for what they are.

Personally, the grant of unlimited license (for contest purposes) is not really a big deal. One enters the song and that one business entity has the freedom to use the song in relation to the contest without getting lawyers and a stack of consent letters for every little thing. It would be an administrative nightmare without this clause and the contest could not be done at all. This is really not something to get overly annoyed with.

As far as the transferring of the ownership of copyright: this is basically a business transaction. Sure, songwriters can view one of their songs as their "baby" but for those can view it as a cold detached business transaction, it can be a smart trade. Basically, AVID is treating the song like a "work-for-hire" which is not unprecedented. Lots of full-time staff in Tinseltown worked under these conditions. Anyways, the decision to give up ownership doesn't happen until the songwriter actually "wins" the contest. At that point, he has the Big Decision.

I don't know what the true value of the gear + Abby Road services would be in street prices. Let's say the prices are worth $5,000 in round numbers. If one chooses not to sell the copyright, he's saying he thinks his song can bring in more than $5,000 on his own to buy that gear. To actually do that the numbers would be something like:

$5000 in spending money to buy that AVID gear on his own is after-tax dollars which means he needs to earn ~$7200 in pre-tax dollars.

To earn $7200 on iTunes @ $0.66 per-paid-download would require 11,000 downloads. This calculation leaves out whatever administrative fees he has to pay to put his song on iTunes in the first place (TuneCore, etc).

Maybe others disagree but I don't think it's a slam dunk that turning down the contest prize from AVID will guarantee your $7200+ from other channels (iTunes, Amazon digital downloads, CDs, etc). One has to analyze it as risk/reward business decision. It seems perfectly reasonable for a songwriter to crunch the numbers, and conclude that he'll come out ahead by selling the copyright outright for a 100% certain $5000 than a ??% uncertain $7200. Of course, the song could get 1 billion youtube views and 20 million iTunes downloads. That could theoretically happen, but not likely. I'm not aware of any top-40 song that arose from a winning a contest. Nobody has a perfect crystal ball on what the future income of song could be. Again, it's risk/reward: what can a unconnected songwriter do with that song to bring money? What can AVID/AbbyRoad do with that song to bring money?

If others have solid ideas that virtually guarantee better earnings than $7200 for that one song, please explain your marketing ideas and execution plan.

Instead of sensationalizing and distorting what their contest rules are, let's just analyze them as a business person. I can't believe there are zero circumstances where it makes sense to sell the copyright outright to AVID. It's never that simple unless you have a crystal ball. There must be sane rational reasons in some cases to give up the copyright; what would be a good situation have to be to do that? Is the $5000 prize too small? How about $10000? More? Why?
#23
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
"Well, there's no need to further sensationalize what that contest rules are about. We can just take them for what they are."

Or people can step and call it like it is.


"Personally, the grant of unlimited license (for contest purposes) is not really a big deal. "

If you read the thread (hey that rhymes...maybe I should enter!)....you would know no one has said it was.



"I don't know what the true value of the gear + Abby Road services would be in street prices. Let's say the prices are worth $5,000 in round numbers. "

Let's not, because it isn't.

"If others have solid ideas that virtually guarantee better earnings than $7200 for that one song, please explain your marketing ideas and execution plan."

It's not on others to explain anything, it's their song for heaven's sake.
It's on Avid to explain why they need to own the song.
You are in an alternate universe here.

"Instead of sensationalizing and distorting what their contest rules are, let's just analyze them as a business person. I can't believe there are zero circumstances where it makes sense to sell the copyright outright to AVID. It's never that simple unless you have a crystal ball."

No one has sensationalized anything. It seems there is always one "I back the company guy" in any of these threads, and apparently we have found him in this one.

And it is precisely because no one has a crystal ball that it is paramount that the songwriter hang on to his rights to the work.

Imagine a modern day unknown McCartney desperate for gear selling "Yesterday" to AVID for a native system.

Yes, unlikely, just as every Powerball winner had an equally unlikely shot when they spent the few bucks for the "ticket that would never win."

TH
#24
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #24
Lives for gear
 
pinkheadedbug's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,535

pinkheadedbug is online now
It's certainly enough to stop me even considering entering this contest. Their loss.
#25
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (USA)
Posts: 1,741

Jason West is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
If you read the thread (hey that rhymes...maybe I should enter!)....you would know no one has said it was.
No one? Well, pinkheadedbug did. He said, "They're both crap."


Quote:
Let's not, because it isn't.
How much is it worth?


Quote:
No one has sensationalized anything. It seems there is always one "I back the company guy" in any of these threads, and apparently we have found him in this one.
It's not about the company, it's about the songwriter and his income. Or are you ignoring that?

Are you saying your dogma is so rigid that the songwriter keeping ownership of his copyright for $0.00 is always superior that selling that copyright for a guaranteed $$$$? That's not very songwriter friendly and it doesn't put food on the table.

Quote:
And it is precisely because no one has a crystal ball that it is paramount that the songwriter hang on to his rights to the work.

Imagine a modern day unknown McCartney desperate for gear selling "Yesterday" to AVID for a native system.

Yes, unlikely, just as every Powerball winner had an equally unlikely shot when they spent the few bucks for the "ticket that would never win."
But it's also quite reasonable and sane not to treat every single song as a "lottery ticket." Some (most) songs you keep. Some you might strategically sell. Some you might do 50/50 co-publishing deals. It depends on the songwriter and how he sees the potential of the song.

What about some perspective here? It's not like the songwriter is selling his entire life's work to AVID. It's one song. And the decision isn't forced until he actually wins. When that moment of truth comes, the songwriter can say, "f**k you and your prize" and just walk away with bragging rights. Nothing wrong with that option at all.
#26
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #26
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
"No one? Well, pinkheadedbug did. He said, "They're both crap."

Actually, he said:

" They're both crap. The normal way this is handled in other arenas (such as photography and screenwriting) is that you grant them necessary reproduction rights for promotional purposes connected with the contest. I've never heard of surrendering all rights if you win. "

Which is a horse of a different color.


"How much is it worth?"

That depends upon the relationship you have with your dealer, and how many hours the AR staff thinks it takes to master one song. But yes less than five grand.


"It's not about the company, it's about the songwriter and his income. Or are you ignoring that? "

Exactly.

"Are you saying your dogma is so rigid that the songwriter keeping ownership of his copyright for $0.00 is always superior that selling that copyright for a guaranteed $$$$? That's not very songwriter friendly and it doesn't put food on the table."

If you want to put food on the table, you don't choose songwriting for a living.
And unless there is some new form of super marination I haven't heard of, I'm not sure you will ever get a Native System tender enough to eat.

Your thinking is why smart writers obtain legal advice, which would never be to give "your best song" away for no reason.

Again, why does Avid need to own the song?


TH
#27
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (USA)
Posts: 1,741

Jason West is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
That depends upon the relationship you have with your dealer, and how many hours the AR staff thinks it takes to master one song.
So provide your estimate$ so we can work with some concrete numbers. This gives us the ability to work backwards from # of iTunes downloads we'd have to sell or or some other metric.

Help us out.


Quote:
Your thinking is why smart writers obtain legal advice, which would never be to give "your best song" away for no reason.
"No reason?"

That's sensationalism.

The "reason" is a trade for real gear worth real money. That's a far cry from "no reason."

It's irrelevant that the gear will be outdated in a few years. The songwriter conceivably could sell it immediately on ebay for cash to help pay for the macroni and beans to sustain him while he writes his next batch of songs.

Quote:
Again, why does Avid need to own the song?
Because that's what they feel like they need to have to give out their gear. Isn't it obvious?


Let's analyze your type of advice a bit. If you say to a songwriter, "don't give AVID your song copyright for that gear!!!", why should he take your advice if you are not going to write out a check for $7200 so he can ignore their prize? Your advice is just dogma and not a business decision. It's easy to dish out such advice when there are no financial consequences affecting you. AVID guarantees him some type of financial consideration for the song copyright; you guarantee nothing. Now, if it was Quincy Jones telling the songwriter that, that'd be a different matter. :-)
#28
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #28
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,420

oceantracks is offline
Check with some business managers in the industry, especially those involved in publishing, and get back to us with what they advise. Everything I'm telling you is based on input over the years from people who know far more than either of us about the business side of music.

The most important right a songwriter has is his ownership of his work. This should not be a difficult concept for you, but you seem to struggle with it as if wrestling a large grizzly.

And the idea that Avid "needs" to own your song to give away a Native system is near worthy of a Saturday Night Live routine.

TH
#29
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (USA)
Posts: 1,741

Jason West is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
The most important right a songwriter has is his ownership of his work.
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.

Quote:
This should not be a difficult concept for you, but you seem to struggle with it as if wrestling a large grizzly.
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.

Quote:
And the idea that Avid "needs" to own your song to give away a Native system is near worthy of a Saturday Night Live routine.
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.
#30
11th February 2013
Old 11th February 2013
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Aint Nobody's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,923

Aint Nobody is offline
Sounds more or less like the language on every such contest I've bothered to read the mice print for.

Not right or wrong... just common.
__________________
.

https://soundcloud.com/AintNobodyMusic/aint-nobody-sample

https://soundcloud.com/aintnobodymusic/get-down-sample

https://soundcloud.com/aintnobodymusic/angsmn-sample

https://soundcloud.com/aintnobodymusic/do-what-you-love-sample

AINT NOBODY album is DONE!!! Videos now in production.

Want music and videos BEFORE their official release dates?

PM me for your private password invitation and BE FIRST!
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
bendermastering / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
12
BlackBackDrop / The Moan Zone
2
mix109 / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3
Sqye / So much gear, so little time!
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.