The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
The music industry bailout is here: Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 17th March 2010
  #61
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
Well, then why even involve BMI in the first place?
Why? Really? Are you serious or just arguing for the sake of arguing. See below for my answer to your question :

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
12ax7, amongst all the negative rhetoric you still haven't answered this.....
Without PRO's there is no one to collect performance royalties. You could multiply those performance royalties 1000X's and if I had to collect them myself, I would end up having to quit music and sell used cars or something. Without PRO's, their problems, and their salaries, writers are doomed. It's not a perfect world, but it's a heck of a lot better than any other alternative. Do I wish there were some reforms and better and more accurate distribution of the monies collected? You bet!!!!! Am I read to jump ship? No freaking way.
Old 17th March 2010
  #62
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...OR, you COULD have your OWN damn "outlet," and keep ALL the money!

(A larger slice of a smaller pie.)

Do whatever you want, but I'd rather have 100% of 3000 sales than 3% of 100,000 sales.
12ax7, I think you're missing a major point in music economics. Both of your calculations come out to the same dollar amount, but the latter one you reject is ridiculously more beneficial to any artist. With that type of exposure, you have revenue halo from mass popularity, which you can parlay into huge live revenues, better sway with licensing, and much more word of mouth to lead to further sales.

Why on earth would you ever choose the former calculation? On principle alone?? Seems highly impractical, and from an artistic stance, is also nonsense because doesn't an artist want their creation to help/influence as many people as possible?
Old 17th March 2010
  #63
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Again (copied from post #62):

I had no intent to derail this thread into a discussion over licensing! In retrospect, it was probably counter-productive to include these particular organizations on my "dinolist."

<snip>

The point I was trying to make was that changes in technology have brought about a climate where some new business models are surprisingly effective, and that large established organizations FEAR this, and use their massive lobbying power (and YOUR money) to protectively influence legislation in THEIR favor, sometimes with questionable effects upon those they ostensibly serve.



...So PLEASE, if this argument over licensing MUST continue, can somebody who really wants to argue about it just start a new thread?

.
Old 17th March 2010
  #64
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post

A fine example of this was the initial proposal for the 2007 royalty rates increase for internet radio stations. This little proposal would have provided for a modest increase in royalties payed by ClearChannel and the like, while it forced internet radio services with new business models to pay 7.5% of gross revenue (the highest royalty paid by any class of broadcaster in the US), which would effectively put them out of business!

RIAA lobbied HARD for this proposal, and they were very clever to write the proposal in such a way that the large established broadcasters would keep their mouths shut for obvious reasons.
As with your erroneous classification of PRO's being "Dinosaur Organisations" that license public performances adverse to the way artists "should" be doing things, this example you provide for your argument is just entirely wrong.

The proposal you cite was one floated as a legislative response BY small webcasters as a response AGAINST the webcaster rates set by the CRB after negotiations by the RIAA and webcasters. The CRB set rates based on performances during the second round of proceedings in 2007 (Webcaster II). As a response, small webcasters lobbied Congress and got the Internet Radio Equality Act introduced, a bill that was ultimately unsuccessful.

In other words - your example is pretty much the exact opposite of what happened.
Old 17th March 2010
  #65
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
Again (copied from post #62):

I had no intent to derail this thread into a discussion over licensing! In retrospect, it was probably counter-productive to include these particular organizations on my "dinolist."

<snip>

The point I was trying to make was that changes in technology have brought about a climate where some new business models are surprisingly effective, and that large established organizations FEAR this, and use their massive lobbying power (and YOUR money) to protectively influence legislation in THEIR favor, sometimes with questionable effects upon those they ostensibly serve.



...So PLEASE, if this argument over licensing MUST continue, can somebody who really wants to argue about it just start a new thread?

.
Sorry, I had no intent to re-derail us either, but just felt that your point was applicable not just to licensing but to any music biz model, and in the end we're speaking about viable new biz models that address the evolving political climate in regards to copyright law and piracy enforcement.

So I've read your earlier posts, and I still haven't found much in the way of new business models for artists. Broadcasters, commercial entities, music streaming companies, sure I get it, there are methods... but do you have any good studies on a consistent business model for content CREATORS? So far, without involving labels, I've found 4:
- Be an older star who rose to fame through label support and then go it alone while you still have cultural capital and a long-term fanbase
- Have some novel extra-musical talent, such as filmmaking (OKGO, Pomplamoose) or some extreme weird style that fosters a cultural following (Insane Clown Posse)
- Gig constantly (this tends to work mostly only for jam bands and DJs, and destroys any prospects of having a family or life not spent sleeping in vans)
- Do professional scoring, which also will cease to be a good model if the film and video game industries fall prey to similar piracy issues once bandwidth reaches the data/time ratio it did with mp3s

So i'm all ears for some other model from which content creators can collect revenue in any way. I'd love to hear about some further ideas... but I just can't come up with many at this point. I'm open to ideas here, but until I hear about a realistic new way for musicians to make a humble living, I'm siding with Obama on this one.
Old 17th March 2010
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
By "negative rhetoric," I assume you mean my referring to large collective organizations (only ONE type of which is licensing) as "Dinosaurs."

Well, just like dinosaurs, there was life BEFORE there were large corporate labels, and I predict that there will be life AFTER large corporate labels.
Well again, you are focusing your argument on a soft target instead of sticking to your attack on PRO's.

We aren't talking about 'corporate labels'.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm for self releasing and the freedom to choose that the internet brings.
I'm not a fan of the mainstream labels either.
PRO's are a completely different beast. They exist to support writers and musicians.
There was life before PRO's, but musicians had a bad time and were mostly very poor.
Creative musicians fought hard to get where they are today, with a cut of performance royalties and publishing.
You are in favour of tossing all those rights out of the window, but as yet haven't suggested a practical way of retaining that valuable income source.
Old 17th March 2010
  #67
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gold sounds View Post
Sorry, I had no intent to re-derail us either, but just felt that your point was applicable not just to licensing but to any music biz model, and in the end we're speaking about viable new biz models that address the evolving political climate in regards to copyright law and piracy enforcement.

So I've read your earlier posts, and I still haven't found much in the way of new business models for artists. Broadcasters, commercial entities, music streaming companies, sure I get it, there are methods... but do you have any good studies on a consistent business model for content CREATORS? So far, without involving labels, I've found 4:
- Be an older star who rose to fame through label support and then go it alone while you still have cultural capital and a long-term fanbase
- Have some novel extra-musical talent, such as filmmaking (OKGO, Pomplamoose) or some extreme weird style that fosters a cultural following (Insane Clown Posse)
- Gig constantly (this tends to work mostly only for jam bands and DJs, and destroys any prospects of having a family or life not spent sleeping in vans)
- Do professional scoring, which also will cease to be a good model if the film and video game industries fall prey to similar piracy issues once bandwidth reaches the data/time ratio it did with mp3s

So i'm all ears for some other model from which content creators can collect revenue in any way. I'd love to hear about some further ideas... but I just can't come up with many at this point. I'm open to ideas here, but until I hear about a realistic new way for musicians to make a humble living, I'm siding with Obama on this one.
Cool.

I have no desire to argue over what I believe to be a side-issue to this discussion. Just because I (stupidly, as it tuns out) voiced a belief as an aside does not mean that I really give a damn whether anyone else agrees.

This thread was NOT started to discuss the value of licensing schemes, and while it seems that although nobody has taken it upon themselves to create an appropriate thread to argue about it, here ya go:

A thread to discuss licensing

Now, can we PLEASE get THIS thread back to the vices and/or virtues of what Mr. Obama is proposing (if anyone even knows what the hell it really is).

.
Old 17th March 2010
  #68
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
Cool.

I have no desire to argue over what I believe to be a side-issue to this discussion. Just because I (stupidly, as it tuns out) voiced a belief as an aside does not mean that I really give a damn whether anyone else agrees.

This thread was NOT started to discuss the value of licensing schemes, and while it seems that although nobody has taken it upon themselves to create an appropriate thread to argue about it, here ya go:

A thread to discuss licensing

Now, can we PLEASE get THIS thread back to the vices and/or virtues of what Mr. Obama is proposing (if anyone even knows what the hell it really is).

.
Thanks for the new thread, but I'm not talking about licensing either anymore, and now it feels like you're side-stepping my question. I'm addressing Obama's direct support of upholding copyright laws and ensuring that A) copyright infringers receive penalties, and B) copyright holders have a method through which they can receive revenue when their materials are being distributed (unless they specifically dictate that they are giving away materials for free, which I'm all for).

So if you disagree with Obama's copyright support and would like to see "dinosaur corporations" go away (and trust me, there are numerous majors I would love to see crash and burn), PLEASE elaborate on how music creators and performers can earn an honest living from their trade without solid copyright enforcement... Don't want to seem like I'm attacking you here, but I'm addressing the subject of this thread head-on and always have been (licensing seemed to [previously] be what you kept referencing, not me).
Old 17th March 2010
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by gold sounds View Post
PLEASE elaborate on how music creators and performers can earn an honest living from their trade without solid copyright enforcement...
Yes, I asked a similar question much earlier.
The answer was an attack on the evil mainstream record labels.

I'm not a fan of the mainstream labels either.
Old 18th March 2010
  #70
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gold sounds View Post
PLEASE elaborate on how music creators and performers can earn an honest living from their trade without solid copyright enforcement...
I cannot elaborate on a claim that I never made.

I NEVER said that!
Old 18th March 2010
  #71
This is again touching on the area which I was addressing yet may have been somewhat vague at positioning myself. I really can't see how this can be considered "solid" copyright protection as long as it only applies to a select group of participating countries. I wonder if this "digital revolution" will go down in history as being the undoing of us all. Vinyl suited me just fine. I fear that, while supplying the major labels with these safeguards, they will offer little in the way of real protection to independent artists. It seems that this wining and dining of the industry is to lay the groundwork for rights and percentages to, ultimately, be skimmed off of the top of the artists gross income in some form or the other, probably a tax. I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall.

Not unlike when the fed bought into GM.. it helped inasmuch as the UAW was concerned, but didn't do much for the workers.
Old 18th March 2010
  #72
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
This is again touching on the area which I was addressing yet may have been somewhat vague at positioning myself. I really can't see how this can be considered "solid" copyright protection as long as it only applies to a select group of participating countries. I wonder if this "digital revolution" will go down in history as being the undoing of us all. Vinyl suited me just fine. I fear that, while supplying the major labels with these safeguards, they will offer little in the way of real protection to independent artists. It seems that this wining and dining of the industry is to lay the groundwork for rights and percentages to, ultimately, be skimmed off of the top of the artists gross income in some form or the other, probably a tax. I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall.

Not unlike when the fed bought into GM.. it helped inasmuch as the UAW was concerned, but didn't do much for the workers.
THANK YOU for putting this thread back on topic!

(Not that I agree with all that you said there, but I am content to let this develop further before I chime in again.)
Old 18th March 2010
  #73
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
I cannot elaborate on a claim that I never made.

I NEVER said that!
But you slammed organisations like BMI and ASCP, telling us we should cut out 'the middle man'.

I agree with you about self releasing, although it isn't the greatest option for some. I'd like to agree with you about self licensing, but I fear I might end up spending more time schmoozing and marketing than creating music.
However, you lumped all collectives into this discussion, and in the case of the PRO's, there is very little chance I'd be earning the money (which is currently my biggest income) without their complete involvement.
Old 18th March 2010
  #74
Sometimes I'm unsure that I even agree with myself 100% of the time!
Old 18th March 2010
  #75
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Do I wish there were some reforms and better and more accurate distribution of the monies collected? You bet!!!!! Am I read to jump ship? No freaking way.
Old 18th March 2010
  #76
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gold sounds View Post
PLEASE elaborate on how music creators and performers can earn an honest living from their trade without solid copyright enforcement...
Just for debates sake: just like a street musician or an underpaid waitress. They get tip which is support by people who appreciate what they are doing even if they can chose not to. Like many of the free software companies 'if you like our product and wish to support us, give your donation, pay us your respect'.

I know some street musicians who make more money in a few hours on the street then some colleagues somewhere on a stage with entrance fee.
Old 18th March 2010
  #77
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
I really can't see how this can be considered "solid" copyright protection as long as it only applies to a select group of participating countries.
You really hate tax heh I share your worries here!
Old 18th March 2010
  #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
I know some street musicians who make more money in a few hours on the street then some colleagues somewhere on a stage with entrance fee.
'Some' being the operative word.

Again, it's a rolling back of income and work conditions creative people have fought long and hard to achieve.
Now we are looking for charitable donations to earn a living?
Old 18th March 2010
  #79
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But you slammed organisations like BMI and ASCP, telling us we should cut out 'the middle man'.

I agree with you about self releasing, although it isn't the greatest option for some. I'd like to agree with you about self licensing, but I fear I might end up spending more time schmoozing and marketing than creating music.
However, you lumped all collectives into this discussion, and in the case of the PRO's, there is very little chance I'd be earning the money (which is currently my biggest income) without their complete involvement.
CLICK HERE.
Old 18th March 2010
  #80
Right, I know that pointless thread exists.
Old 18th March 2010
  #81
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Right, I know that pointless thread exists.
Yes. It does. (But so far, nobody who wants to argue about licencing has bothered to go there to do it on-topic.)

...And that is also the place for you to address my supposed "slamming" of BMI/ASCAP. It is also a good place for you to claim that I told you that "we should cut out 'the middle man'" (Which is NOT what I said; I only said that some of us want to do that).


As to the part of what you said that WAS on topic to this thread, your assertion that "there is very little chance [you'd] be earning the money (which is currently [your] biggest income) without their complete involvement" does NOT mean that there is no other way to do it.

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you doing it that way! I'm only saying that it is not the ONLY way, and that I believe that dumping the dinos is the way of the future.

I don't know how many times I have to express that people are perfectly free to make whatever deal they want to make, while also advancing the opinion that the old ways of doing things just might not be the best deal for everybody.



Old 18th March 2010
  #82
PRO's are only collection agencies.
They 'license' businesses to use your music, they don't place music.
Then they collect the money and distribute it.
I'm not sure you can do that on your own.

Music licensing is something completely different.
You license your music for use in TV, film, commercials, computer games, library albums etc, etc....
I don't think BMI, ASCAP offer that service.
You can do that for yourself, but it's usually advantageous to have a publisher work for you, or find a friendly music supervisor that works in tv, film, advertising.
Old 18th March 2010
  #83
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
PRO's are only collection agencies.
They 'license' businesses to use your music, they don't place music.
Then they collect the money and distribute it.
I'm not sure you can do that on your own.

Music licensing is something completely different.
You license your music for use in TV, film, commercials, computer games, library albums etc, etc....
I don't think BMI, ASCAP offer that service.
You can do that for yourself, but it's usually advantageous to have a publisher work for you, or find a friendly music supervisor that works in tv, film, advertising.
Post #4
Old 18th March 2010
  #84
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
I don't know how many times I have to express that people are perfectly free to make whatever deal they want to make, while also advancing the opinion that the old ways of doing things just might not be the best deal for everybody.
In the US we are lucky to have 3 COMPETING PRO's. BMI vs. ASCAP has some fairly substantial differences. I'm sure SESAC does as well, as they are taking up watermarking from what I hear. Choose the one the suits you best.

Until there are the new options that you suggest are here and ready, you have two options. You can either flush all that income down the toilet or join one of the existing PRO's.

If the future is as golden as you say, then I anxiously await it. Until then, I live in the present, and am a proud and thankful BMI member.


PS - if you want all the licensing debate to go over to the other thread, then you should make rash unsubstantiated accusations on the OTHER thread instead of here. As of last look, all you did was make a pointer and say "have at it". That doesn't create a dialog.

If you can't deal with threads that go off topic, the internet is a very dangerous place......hehheh
Old 18th March 2010
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...And its NOT a "fantasy."

THIS guy's already doing it! (Yes, several thousand units, self-distributed):

PacoStrickland.com
I looked all over this guys website.
What is he doing that compares to or is remotely similar to the service BMI/ASCAP provide?

I honestly want to know, because you are confusing me.
Old 18th March 2010
  #86
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...A fine example of this was the initial proposal for the 2007 royalty rates increase for internet radio stations. This little proposal would have provided for a modest increase in royalties payed by ClearChannel and the like, while it forced internet radio services with new business models to pay 7.5% of gross revenue (the highest royalty paid by any class of broadcaster in the US), which would effectively put them out of business!..
I'd strongly suggest that you go back and READ the actual proposal instead of parroting out and out BS from the Google crowd.

That proposal was a compulsory license ONLY for situations where net-casters and artists couldn't reach an agreement on payment.
Old 18th March 2010
  #87
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I'd strongly suggest that you go back and READ the actual proposal instead of parroting out and out BS from the Google crowd.
1) I have NOT Googled this subject.

2) Where the hell can I actually read the text of the proposed legislation?
Old 18th March 2010
  #88
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I looked all over this guys website.
What is he doing that compares to or is remotely similar to the service BMI/ASCAP provide?

I honestly want to know, because you are confusing me.
Post #7
Old 18th March 2010
  #89
So, you can't answer a simple question.

Probably because you don't have much idea what you're talking about.
OK, that's fine.

Here's a link for you:
How to Offer a Mechanical License for Your Own Music
Old 18th March 2010
  #90
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
So, you can't answer a simple question.
Well, I guess I COULD, but screw it!

...Because I really don't give a fricken' damn how you license your crap. How many ways can I say it?

I just put the other thread there so you people who want to argue about this have a place to do so.

As I have said SO many times, somehow an aside comment earlier in this thread hit a nerve for a few folks, who just can't seem to let it go.

Therefore, I have decided to unsubscribe from BOTH threads.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
rack gear / Music Business
19

Forum Jump
Forum Jump