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
President annouces support for radio pay-to-play Dynamics Plugins
Old 3rd April 2010
  #61
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
Out of curiosity, what would you say the good reason is?


Gregory Scott - ubk
Not to get into politics, but IMO money has infected our national dialogue to the point that politics itself has become wholly untrustworthy. No matter what side you're on, the mainstream political discourse in this country is about profit, directly or indirectly.

It used to be that at least the debate was uninfected, and actions could be taken with reasonable certainty that it was a legitimate attempt at bettering society.

Unfortunately now, almost all debates are untruthful. This bill is a perfect example. Both sides use conjecture and sensationalism to affect the body politic.

Seems to me that there is no reasonable argument against a performance royalty. It's an abject offense to deny artists a performance royalty. EVERY ARTIST SHOULD BE PAID A PERFORMANCE ROYALTY ANYTIME THEIR PERFORMANCE IS AIRED PUBLICLY.

However, given the current situation in Washington, it is equally reasonable to suggest that what this bill does is cements a dangerous precedent, wherein almost 95% of all performance royalties will be collected in lieu of an organization that represents only 15% of current broadcast performances.

What that means is that yes, this should be done, but not in the scheme that is currently proposed.

I don't totally buy the "death of radio" argument, mostly because the entire royalty payments will effectively be 1/8 of what radio takes in for advertising alone. I do think that campus radio should be exempt, and obviously the rates for mom & pop stations should be revisited.

But to be out in perspective, we need to understand some realities as the legislation is currently written : royalties would be distributed with 50% being paid to the Master Owner (record labels in most cases), 45% to the main performer, and the other 5% being split between ancillary performers (including session musicians).

It's reasonable to argue that the RIAA has historically been pretty well anti-artist, at least in action and reality. The RIAA has consistently lied to Congress (as has the NAB/Radio), and will most certainly find ways to game this structure. The RIAA is about one thing only : bottom line for the big 3. They always have been, and will continue to do so.

To me, this scheme at the least, should be 50% main performer, 10% ancillary performers, 40% master owner. As it stands now, this payout is skewed to the favor of the labels, and considering that most commercial radio is Top 40 playlists, independent artists and labels will likely benefit only partially from this, if at all really. That's debatable. And what happens to the 5% when there are no ancillary performers? Not clear.

Also, can I honestly argue that the Muscle Shoals band is only good for 5%? Or Booker T & the MGs? Or the Funk Bros?

My reserve is that artists still aren't getting fairness here. We're setting up a precedent that will likely be in effect for 100 years to come without change (because we all know Washington does not change things quickly, if at all), and therefore it needs to be the right one. We've gone this long without it, why can't we make sure it's at least artist friendly for once...

The House and Senate bills differ in that the Senate bill grants the royalty payouts to go through the master owner. In other words, Warner Brothers collects for you, then pays you according to their terms and timeline....... as an aside, WB has owed me a significant amount of money for 6 MONTHSfor engineering work on the new Devo record.........I don't trust the Senate's language in this regard. We DO NOT need labels controlling more of our money.

The House bill seems more reasonable, and the royalties are paid directly to each party.

This is a worthwhile debate. At the end of the day, what we're discussing is artists finally getting paid for their blood sweat and tears. The only problem is that nobody is lobbying FOR the artists.

We have two industry dinosaurs, wrestling amongst themselves, under the guise of fighting for the little guy. We all know that is dubious at best, and both the RIAA and NAB are out for one thing, and one thing only - their wallets. Both organizations have historically fought against the little guy.

But now that we're talking about it, we should all get aware, and take a balanced and respectful look at this, and do what we can to advocate for ourselves and the artists we work with and care about.

Because without the artists, the RIAA, NAB, and WE would be on the unemployment line.
Old 4th April 2010
  #62
Lives for gear
 
dan p's Avatar
 

The faceless are doing the behind the scenes work.Lobbyist's!



Dan P
Old 4th April 2010
  #63
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

The thing nobody's talking about is the fact that the artist royalties are negotiable. An artist who thinks a certain station can help them is free to make a special deal for limited or, if they choose, unlimited free airplay on that station. It's the end of broadcasters dictating terms to artists.

American artists will also for the first time be able to collect their royalties for play outside the United States where artists have gotten royalties for many decades. This is literally going to lift some older artists who still get lots of airplay in Europe out of absolute poverty.

Of course the multi-billion dollar American broadcast industry is whining about what will be a trivial expense compared to even a month's power bill for a radio station.

And by the way a LOT of artists have owned their own masters since the early 1950s. There's lots of anti-record label BS floating around the internet from all the folks who don't want to pay artists.
Old 4th April 2010
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Ken Walker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Studio Addict View Post
Right, and in the US there is only one kind of person and only one language is spoken.

?!?
I will assume that you are trolling and can't be so ignorant as to totally miss the point.
Old 4th April 2010
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Walker View Post
I will assume that you are trolling and can't be so ignorant as to totally miss the point.
Actually it's a valid point I and others have made.

You could also drop the 'ignorant' and 'unintelligent' aspect of your argument.
Maybe we just see things from a different perspective?>
For me, I think you grossly exaggerate the difference between European and American music scenes, most specifically between UK and the US.
Old 4th April 2010
  #66
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
For me, I think you grossly exaggerate the difference between European and American music scenes, most specifically between UK and the US.
I know you were addressing Ken, but I have to just mention, FWIW, I've toured throughout Europe and the States more than once, and in my experience, there is a difference in two key areas:

1) how the audience reacts/accepts/enjoys music

2) how profit and the aim to profit is treated, with regard to the arts

we have to remember this debate is not just about music - it also encompasses the way in which music is societally viewed, versus how profit is societally viewed in that context.

I am confident in saying that Europe (by and large) and the US could not be more different in the way these are treated.

But I agree with you in principle.
Old 4th April 2010
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJamesGoody View Post

1) how the audience reacts/accepts/enjoys music

2) how profit and the aim to profit is treated, with regard to the arts
I'd be interested to read you expand on those.

Regarding your second point, I think we need to stick to commercial music, as that is the arena these musician payments are mostly going to operate in.
I'm aware that visual arts, opera and ballet in particular enjoy huge public subsidies in Europe that they do not in the US.
However, rock and pop musicians are working on a pretty level playing field in the UK and US in my opinion.
Old 4th April 2010
  #68
Gear Addict
 
spectrasound's Avatar
Not enough "posts to be relevant"

Quote:
You dont have enough posts to be relevant.

My, my, my.... must have hit a nerve. If I'm not relevant don't respond to me. I must be somewhat "relevant". I really have understood the subject being discussed and done the research. Just making a little "relevant" side comment here.
Old 4th April 2010
  #69
Yeah, 'not enough posts to be relevant' is too silly to warrant a response.
Old 4th April 2010
  #70
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I'd be interested to read you expand on those.

Regarding your second point, I think we need to stick to commercial music, as that is the arena these musician payments are mostly going to operate in.
I'm aware that visual arts, opera and ballet in particular enjoy huge public subsidies in Europe that they do not in the US.
However, rock and pop musicians are working on a pretty level playing field in the UK and US in my opinion.

You're right about commercial music. Certainly in the UK, the basic structure is pretty similar to the US. I do think though, that it speaks to a specific mentality in the UK that isn't in the mainstream here - that is to say, the way arts are treated in a larger context, informs the way the industry has operated in the UK with regard to legislation, and how it relates to music.

There's a different national mindset in the UK, musically speaking. From my experience - just in general - the cultural reaction to music is much more visceral in the UK and even more so in Europe. What I mean is, people seem much more actively engaged as an audience than they are in the US. Of course, this could be missing part of the reality - but it's at least my firsthand experience, wrong as it potentially may be.

I've noticed a much wider acceptance for music outside of the mainstream in the UK, but even more in Europe. I heard music via broadcast that would never in a million years be played here. There was some support system for things that existed on the fringes, and that is definitely not the case here.

Not to say it isn't changing as it becomes westernized, but my instinct tells me that in the simplest form, music as a means for appreciation, is far more culturally prized than it is here in the US. That makes a difference at least in terms of how the business operates, and the prism through which it sees the world.

Also, it seems to me that simply in a historical context, profit has long been the motivating factor in the legislative process, here in the US. This is not so much the case in the UK and Europe. I am speaking only to the technological age, or the 20th/21st century as we know it.

Legislatively, there is a much different perspective on virtually every issue that comes to pass throughout Europe and the UK. That's the main point I'm trying to make, really. Since there seems to be a deeper cultural appreciation and institution of music throughout Europe/UK, coupled with the fact that legislatively speaking, laws are made with much less corporate interference and bias than the US, one gets something that works at least reasonably well and somewhat transparently.

I fear that with this current bill - and the current bill only - much like the healthcare bill we just passed, the language is so tilted away from the artists, that we set a dangerous precedent for the handling of this issue; a precedent that won't get changed for 100 more years. The bill is not about true EQUITY for artists, it's about changing the balance of power at the top.

I absolutely and unequivocally support performance royalties for any and all media, including broadcast.

But with this proposed legislation, we're leaving the negotiations in the hands of two industries that have always fought against the greater interests of music culture.

Like I said before, both the RIAA and the NAB NEED the artists to even exist, whereas the artists need neither to exist. Once again, they are trying to reinforce a paradigm that devalues the artist, and sets a precedent for many years to come, culturally and legislatively.

I'm just not down with that.

Sorry for another long post..... but yeah, that's my experience in the UK and Europe. Now I'm ready to admit that I could be wrong about that. But being there and experiencing both for my own eyes and ears, I feel pretty okay with that interpretation.
Old 4th April 2010
  #71
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
Chrisso

You made me think about something with one of your earlier posts......

It is vaguely possible that broadcast will become more accessible for independents under this particular version of the legislation.....

Maybe - JUST MAYBE - broadcast will, in an attempt to spite the RIAA and the Big 3, open up programming to more regional artists, or at least independently operated and distributed artists.
Old 4th April 2010
  #72
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJamesGoody View Post

I've noticed a much wider acceptance for music outside of the mainstream in the UK, but even more in Europe. I heard music via broadcast that would never in a million years be played here.
That's perfectly true.

Quote:
Legislatively, there is a much different perspective on virtually every issue that comes to pass throughout Europe and the UK.
That's also very true in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJamesGoody View Post
There's a different national mindset in the UK, musically speaking. From my experience - just in general - the cultural reaction to music is much more visceral in the UK and even more so in Europe. What I mean is, people seem much more actively engaged as an audience than they are in the US. Of course, this could be missing part of the reality - but it's at least my firsthand experience, wrong as it potentially may be.
I've had the opposite experience.
Maybe it's the difference between a UK band playing the UK and playing the USA, and vice versa in your case.
Certainly I've found UK audiences very muted.
Partly because they are fashion driven, flocking to witness the latest big band, and partly because of the reserved character of Brits.
If you're not the latest hot band, the audience attitude is "OK, prove to me I've not wasted my ticket purchase".
North American and most European audiences are much more enthusiastic, they want to enjoy the experience rather than having to be won over.
American audiences are knowledgeable about your band and the history and influence of similar bands. Once they like you, they'll stick with you through thick and thin. McCartney regularly sells out stadia in the U.S, and rarely plays the UK.
It's true Brits and Europeans have wider tastes and are quickly able to adjust to strange new sounds. Much more enthusiastically embracing bands that fuse different genre elements, while on the negative, they are quick to abandon bands that no longer seem fashionable.
Old 4th April 2010
  #73
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticRecording View Post
Additional Regulation is rarely a "good" thing...

Will these fees (read: "taxes") amount to anything more than a political pat on the a$$ to content creators? Only time will tell...

Royalties and taxes are COMPLETELY different things.
Old 4th April 2010
  #74
Gear Addict
 
Paul Russell's Avatar
 

It's a paid model over here in Singapore too, very much like the UK version.

You register your track with COMPASS, the Composers and Authors' Society, and every time it gets played on the radio the ISRC code is noted and a fee is logged.

At the end of the year COMPASS dishes out the royalties, which can often be much more than the CD sales, especially for a local band.
Old 4th April 2010
  #75
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
You could very well be right, Chrisso. I definitely think there's an element of "grass is greener", no matter where someone is. It may just come down to different perspective.

One way or the other, it's about time someone had a good constructive conversation here.

Cheers! Onward and upward
Old 4th April 2010
  #76
Gear Maniac
 
nbutter's Avatar
 

Copyright

So the question here is whether the people who record a performance should have the right to determine who is allowed to play back that performance for commercial gain.

When radio got rolling in the 1920's, the broadcasters ganged up and got an exemption -- a government-distributed, anti-free market exemption, if you like -- from the obligation to pay anything to the people who made/owned the recording.

Imagine if TV stations could show movies or TV shows for free, without compensating the film companies who paid for their production. It would not seem fair to the film-makers. But that's what we've had going on in the US for decades with music.

It's true that the RIAA are pretty unlovable for various reasons. But from a basic intellectual property standpoint, I have no problem saying they should get paid by radio here, just like they are other places.

In practice, I think this is only happening because radio's so beat up by the internet that they've lost the clout to hang on to their expemption, and the labels are so beaten up by the internet that frankly I think politicians feel sorry for them a bit.

I predict that no commercial radio stations will shut down as a result, and no labels will get rich as a result.

To the extent that some additional money flows through from advertising revenue to musicians as a result of this, that's also a good thing. Finally, to say that foreign musicians should get paid for music played here, and US musicians should get paid for music played abroad, seems like a good thing, too.

Just 2 cents, with a dollop of history.

Has really very, very, very little to do with Obama in particular.
Old 4th April 2010
  #77
Lives for gear
 
Ken Walker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Actually it's a valid point I and others have made.

You could also drop the 'ignorant' and 'unintelligent' aspect of your argument.
Maybe we just see things from a different perspective?>
For me, I think you grossly exaggerate the difference between European and American music scenes, most specifically between UK and the US.
I said nothing about being unintelligent, as one can be highly educated and still ignorant of certain issues (see Am. politics).

I submit that the UK scene compared to the rest of Europe is different, based on my experience.

Also, if you read all my posts, I am not saying it won't work. I am saying that there are valid points from both sides of the issue.
Old 4th April 2010
  #78
Lives for gear
 
dan p's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Or you could see it as Obama backing creative people, Bush backing corporate radio.

Really this site does confuse me at times.
Maybe the membership are more conservative industry insiders and less self employed musicians, engineers and record producers?
My frontal cortex response to spectrasound,not completely valid.I'm from the camp of the self employed and dont find the conservative point of view likes anything Obama has to say.Big government is a tough sell for those who have supported conservative ideology for the last 30 years.
Sure seems like the grass is greener on the other side though.
I know of bands who tour Europe and do very well there.Cant even sell out small clubs here.Dont know about the UK but Chriss's point about Fashion is interesting.
Better to be successful somewhere else with a mystique you cant get from where you are from.

Dan P
Old 4th April 2010
  #79
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Exposure in the U.S. these days is dominated by advertisers and the advertising industry is often obsessed by fashion and focus group tests which by their very nature favor fashion over message or content. Our records are all sold on consignment so dealers are often led to only stock music that is fashionable. This unsustainable mess has been in place here for a couple decades.

Europe still has music fans determining popularity and stores are more picky because they can't return records that nobody wants for credit.
Old 4th April 2010
  #80
Lives for gear
 
strewnshank's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Studio Addict View Post
We kid ourselves thinking that we are the leaders in ANYTHING (except obesity and illiteracy).
Have you been living under a rock? Seriously. To suggest that America doesn't offer much to the world besides illiteracy and obesity is pretty offensive.

Dislike our country all you want, but comments like that are not part of the solution.
Old 4th April 2010
  #81
Lives for gear
 
dan p's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by strewnshank View Post
Have you been living under a rock? Seriously. To suggest that America doesn't offer much to the world besides illiteracy and obesity is pretty offensive.

Dislike our country all you want, but comments like that are not part of the solution.
So true!Its does depend on where you live,how educated you are,and what you are exposed to good and bad that causes one to make comments like that.I've found myself guilty of this,not good for the discussion.
Blanket statements dont work in a multicultural society and that is where America is heading.


Dan P
Old 4th April 2010
  #82
Lives for gear
 
dan p's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Exposure in the U.S. these days is dominated by advertisers and the advertising industry is often obsessed by fashion and focus group tests which by their very nature favor fashion over message or content. Our records are all sold on consignment so dealers are often led to only stock music that is fashionable. This unsustainable mess has been in place here for a couple decades.

Europe still has music fans determining popularity and stores are more picky because they can't return records that nobody wants for credit.
Yep,couple of examples,Old Navy and Ross department stores spend more on advertising than the quality they sell in their stores.Cheap clothes that fall apart sooner so you have to buy more but the models they use in their commercials always look like they came from high end modeling agencies.
Same with food,if its advertised you dont want to eat it.Its bad for ya
and will make you sick after prolonged meals at your fav fast food place/restaurant.
I doubt if you ever see a CEO of a fast food chain eat at the restaurants he owns!
As for records,most kids dont buy whole cds anymore.They either get it for free but more and more are going to Itunes and downloading singles.
I sure would like to see the concept album format come back when every song contributed to the overall experience sorely missing from todays soundbite world.
Just got an e-mail today from one such licensing company I have some tracks with asking for 15 and 30 second clips per advertisers requests.


Dan P
Old 4th April 2010
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Walker View Post
I said nothing about being unintelligent
I stand corrected:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Walker View Post
Only an uneducated person would think that Europe didn't have a wider selection of music.
Old 4th April 2010
  #84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan p View Post
My frontal cortex response to spectrasound,not completely valid.
Dan P
Only equating number of Gearslutz posts with experience.
Sir Paul McCartney could make his first ever Gearslutz post on this topic and demonstrate a deeper knowledge of the music industry than many here with 5000 against their name.
Sorry it's just a sore point with me - frequency of posting = more validity of argument.
Old 5th April 2010
  #85
Gear Addict
 
spectrasound's Avatar
Wow !

So... I can have a lot more posts and be more "valid" in what I say? I can post all kinds of stuff, true or not, and that makes me more experienced & "valid" ? Phew!

You know some of us are running successful businesses and that limits our "GS time", as well as posts. GS just isn't for me at this stage. Chrisso's statement is the most misinformed and insulting I have ever received. So long comrade.
Old 5th April 2010
  #86
Lives for gear
 
dan p's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spectrasound View Post
So... I can have a lot more posts and be more "valid" in what I say? I can post all kinds of stuff, true or not, and that makes me more experienced & "valid" ? Phew!

You know some of us are running successful businesses and that limits our "GS time", as well as posts. GS just isn't for me at this stage. Chrisso's statement is the most misinformed and insulting I have ever received. So long comrade.
My mistake and apologies!You can post what you like and we can agree to disagree!

Dan P
Old 5th April 2010
  #87
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectrasound View Post
Chrisso's statement is the most misinformed and insulting I have ever received.
That's what you get for supporting someone's right to speak.
heh

Back to the topic......
Old 5th April 2010
  #88
Gear Addict
 
spectrasound's Avatar
ok then....

Old 16th June 2010
  #89
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
I quick round up if I may.

QUOTES:

"What about streaming media or podcasts? You can already stream music to an iPhone that is hooked up to your car stereo. "

"According to the Senate bill, all radio stations will pay a blanket fee (much like they do to ASCAP, etc...), payable to SoundExchange, which will collect on behalf of the RIAA."

"who is Clear Channel?
How would a blanket $5000 fee per year be distributed to all the artists that one radio station plays?"

"The language is unclear as to how the money gets to the artists."

"This is a big middle-finger to the people who actually "create" the art, while it greases the pockets of the irrelevant intermediaries who collude with the government.
More of the same mixed-economy (fake-capitalism) system that both parties love so much."

"Yes, I'm receiving money for records I played on.
Often my initial fee was small, but I've received rolling income from PAMRA (then PPL) for years. It hasn't stunted radio in the UK. People involved in music should applaud this, not carry on like it's the end of the world. You can research this site to see how successfully it works in the UK: PPL : Home "

"This is good news for internet radio (sort of) who has had to unfairly pay this way for years now. Not good news in the sense that it helps them any, but at least things wouldn't be blatantly unfair anymore."

"and older smaller stations are grandfathered in. That means a small station in Nowhere, Idaho is not going to get hit with a $5,000 a year fee. Many of these stations won't be paying much at all."

"Music always gets the short end of the stick, politically, and we are always getting ripped off, and letting people do it to us because it is our "art", and like an abused wife we are conditioned to believe we don't deserve better.
The stations are making money off our work. Period. I wrote a blog post on this at my website with a link to the big petition. PLEASE sign it, and spread the word and help educate people on our rights to earn money on our craft when other people are profiting on them."

"This would immediately put more money in the pockets of working musicians because they would start getting money from Europe that they don't get now." "If you recorded an album in London, or played on a live album with a French artist you are eligible for rolling income. Of course I don't get anything for the American albums I played on"

"But to be out in perspective, we need to understand some realities as the legislation is currently written : royalties would be distributed with 50% being paid to the Master Owner (record labels in most cases), 45% to the main performer, and the other 5% being split between ancillary performers (including session musicians)."

.............

IMO the problem is always the same.. How do we get the money we are presuming is being collected for us.. ??

It seems to me that Radio stations in the USA receive a lot of their income from Advertising. Given this, you would logically think that it should be the advertisers who should be paying more to make good the better deals they have been accustomed to historically. by not having to pay artists as an inbuilt cost in their business model. However, it is odd that it is well known that advertisers are pulling money out of the conventional models as they collapse under the weight of a totally new internet communications paradigm. Radio broadcasts I would think, must go streaming internet and these moneys will all be collected online. It doesn't seem to me in any way that this new royalty collection model will be (anything) to do with old modes of Local broadcasting in the traditional sense. so the only Logical thing to do is to start to think about it in the new sense and advise worried traditional radio broadcasters that they need to start to look to a completely new technological model.. sadly, not at all easy for many. I'm sure the last thing they want to have to think about is something like this. :-(

Note: a great deal of broadcasting in Europe is state funded one way or another. The lines are quite delineated and local broadcasting and News is already suffering a lot in the UK. it is hitting the wall. It is as some have pointed out, different in Europe to the USA.

All in All it seems to me that given (with 50% being paid to the Master Owner) it is clear what the purpose and direction of this legislation is designed to best obtain. Namely, a mechanism by which the record industry can get this percentage as the inevitable move to a new internet based Music streaming paradigm takes shape.
I can only conclude that it is in fact NOT designed to benefit new Music or benefit the performers. it is actually designed to take percentages from performances which were signed to the Master Owner Label and direct this money to the Master Owners. In fact I would argue at the percentages outline here, it is a (BAD) deal for performers as is usually the case Historically.. so nothing new there I guess.

There are some new benefits to Artists and performers of course but as usual it is derisory.

IMO the one thing you can often rely on in respect to large representative bodies such as the RIAA when remodeling, will usually be to make sure that whatever is the case, they themselves must stay in tact.
Old 18th June 2010
  #90
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnsngwtr View Post
Royalties and taxes are COMPLETELY different things.
Thanks tnsngwtr, yes they are. I was feeling a bit distrustful that evening...Until i read D. James Goodwin's post(btw-thx!) i did not fully understand the legislation being presented. Now it seems more clear to me that the true copyright holders could be potentially delayed from getting royalty disbursements in a timely fashion if the "big 3" were to be the receivers of all royalties and responsible for the division of monies. Also, the actual percentages seem to be suspect to me as well.

I do believe writers should get the biggest share and the creators(read: session players or band members) should get a healthy percentage. What of the master owners? I mean are we to assume that a "master" holds little value or, that the Investor(s) who paid the artist(s) have to pay then again through sharing of performance royalty. How retroactive will this bill be? How broad are it's powers? And like DJGoody said, if this is enacted(read: pushed through house), will it take 100 years to rid ourselves of it?

I also have a healthy distrust of the current legislative and political climate, but i also think that it is high time that songwriter, artists and musicians got they're rightful share. How that is administered will decide how many generations value and view a truly human and unique commodity...


Best,

Nathan
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
matt thomas / The Moan Zone
34
BillyJack / The Moan Zone
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump