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’s biggest headache? Hint: it’s not piracy [Infographic]
Old 8th January 2018
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Desire Inspires's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
The music industry’s biggest headache? Hint: it’s not piracy [Infographic]


Last edited by Desire Inspires; 8th January 2018 at 02:40 AM.. Reason: super....
Old 8th January 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 

"The problem arises here: the Music Supervisor doesn’t know who should get the publishing royalties."


It is not up to the supervisor.. It is up to you to know.

It's not their job to track your own royalties.
Old 8th January 2018
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Desire Inspires's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noisewagon View Post
"The problem arises here: the Music Supervisor doesn’t know who should get the publishing royalties."


It is not up to the supervisor.. It is up to you to know.

It's not their job to track your own royalties.
I agree.

Also, what happened to Music Licensing Directory? The site isn't working. http://musiclicensingdirectory.com/
Old 8th January 2018
  #4
Gear Head
 

If Licensing only comprises less then 2% of the overall revenues, then how could retitling be an industries biggest headache?
Old 9th January 2018
  #5
that is 4 years old now. A lot has changed.

Music licensing makes even more than $2.5bil now. And "Happy Birthday To You" is now public domain and Warner/Chappell was ordered to pay back millions of dollars in licenses to all the people they have charged for it over the years since they were found in court to NOT have a legal right to the song. Doh!
Old 12th January 2018
  #6
Gear Head
 

& it's still a small portion of the overall pie. A portion that is similar to a ravaged carcass on the high plains with the Vultures still circling and the Hyenas and Lions elbowing for a nibble. It's okay work of course if someone can get it.
Old 12th January 2018
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Desire Inspires's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
& it's still a small portion of the overall pie. A portion that is similar to a ravaged carcass on the high plains with the Vultures still circling and the Hyenas and Lions elbowing for a nibble. It's okay work of course if someone can get it.
Lmfao!

This explains why my royalty checks get lower and lower. It all makes sense now.
Old 19th January 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
 
GearAndGuitars's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
Link to article (click me!)

5 year old article about music licensing:

[IMG][/IMG]
There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start...
Old 19th January 2018
  #9
Lives for gear
 
GearAndGuitars's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
If Licensing only comprises less then 2% of the overall revenues, then how could retitling be an industries biggest headache?
right... and retitling isn't exactly a secret... it's been going on for years and everyone is in on it for their own reasons. I know people who have retitled the same cue 20 times... largely because EACH use is a buyout, so no royalties anyway.
Old 19th January 2018
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Desire Inspires's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearAndGuitars View Post
right... and retitling isn't exactly a secret... it's been going on for years and everyone is in on it for their own reasons. I know people who have retitled the same cue 20 times... largely because EACH use is a buyout, so no royalties anyway.
I don't agree with the infographic either.

But the infographic was entertaining nonetheless.
Old 19th January 2018
  #11
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearAndGuitars View Post
right... and retitling isn't exactly a secret... it's been going on for years and everyone is in on it for their own reasons. I know people who have retitled the same cue 20 times... largely because EACH use is a buyout, so no royalties anyway.
I believe you.

Now if each use is a buyout then that will cause problems if they are offering exclusive contracts and rights. Hopefully it's non-exclusive.

I have re-titled here and there although haven't been that active in music since 2012. If done so in an ethical way, by not choosing competing libraries or companies and only re-titling as little as possible, then it shouldn't be a big issue. The whole copyright thing makes re-titling a reality regardless of sector and sometimes even just for records, it's certain practices of people that seem to cause the real issues.
Old 3rd February 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
 
GearAndGuitars's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
I believe you.

Now if each use is a buyout then that will cause problems if they are offering exclusive contracts and rights. Hopefully it's non-exclusive.
nope, each re-title is exclusive which is why it is re-titled in the first place. no one is getting ripped off here - this has been an open secret, both the composers and producers are in on it for their own reasons. and when songs are just words on cue sheets there's no problems... this didn't become a problem until fingerprinting and tune sat uncovered the open secret when matching the same waveform under different names... solution? ignore tunesat detections and stick to cue sheets.
Old 3rd February 2018
  #13
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearAndGuitars View Post
nope, each re-title is exclusive which is why it is re-titled in the first place. no one is getting ripped off here - this has been an open secret, both the composers and producers are in on it for their own reasons. and when songs are just words on cue sheets there's no problems... this didn't become a problem until fingerprinting and tune sat uncovered the open secret when matching the same waveform under different names... solution? ignore tunesat detections and stick to cue sheets.
Immediately it seems that must be illegal, but perhaps technically it must not be. Maybe the contracts are not exhaustive enough in their definitions to go beyond the scope of simply the name and ISRC of a specific unit instead of what the nature of exclusivity is. If its just jurisdictional exclusivity then the re-titling shouldn't be an issue.

The problem that comes to mind is someone acquiring the exclusive rights to something only to hear it in something else, a competing product perhaps, removing the whole desire for exclusivity in the first place. A company desiring exclusivity to compete and scale business and offer their clients something differentiating or with variety generally isn't happy to hear they paid for something they didn't receive.

If a free market capitalistic market place exists then its only time until music supervisors etc. just search competing companies for the same sound recording in order to get the lower possible price.

Ultimately its a poor practice in the Exclusive World unless the sound recording is changed beyond just calling it something different and giving it a new ISRC Code. With non exclusive it makes sense and shouldn't be much of an issue.

Did anyone ever stop to think for a moment that practices like exclusive re-titling is just continuing to help erode confidence and overall prices and returns?

It just continues to help permeate and manifest a general ethos of composers and producers and music in general not really wanting to do good business.
Old 3rd February 2018
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearAndGuitars View Post
nope, each re-title is exclusive which is why it is re-titled in the first place. no one is getting ripped off here - this has been an open secret, both the composers and producers are in on it for their own reasons. and when songs are just words on cue sheets there's no problems... this didn't become a problem until fingerprinting and tune sat uncovered the open secret when matching the same waveform under different names... solution? ignore tunesat detections and stick to cue sheets.
the problem started when multiple libraries started suing the networks because they felt it was their efforts that got the placement yet the network gave the license to another library that represented the same master under a different name.

That is why most of the networks now refuse to use anything retitled/non-exclusive. They have learned their lesson.
Old 3rd February 2018
  #15
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
Immediately it seems that must be illegal, but perhaps technically it must not be. Maybe the contracts are not exhaustive enough in their definitions to go beyond the scope of simply the name and ISRC of a specific unit instead of what the nature of exclusivity is. If its just jurisdictional exclusivity then the re-titling shouldn't be an issue.

The problem that comes to mind is someone acquiring the exclusive rights to something only to hear it in something else, a competing product perhaps, removing the whole desire for exclusivity in the first place. A company desiring exclusivity to compete and scale business and offer their clients something differentiating or with variety generally isn't happy to hear they paid for something they didn't receive.

If a free market capitalistic market place exists then its only time until music supervisors etc. just search competing companies for the same sound recording in order to get the lower possible price.

Ultimately its a poor practice in the Exclusive World unless the sound recording is changed beyond just calling it something different and giving it a new ISRC Code. With non exclusive it makes sense and shouldn't be much of an issue.

Did anyone ever stop to think for a moment that practices like exclusive re-titling is just continuing to help erode confidence and overall prices and returns?

It just continues to help permeate and manifest a general ethos of composers and producers and music in general not really wanting to do good business.

I disagree with most of this.....
Old 3rd February 2018
  #16
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I disagree with most of this.....
Interesting and of no cares to me. Luckily Gearslutz isnt my spot and over the years far too many slimy criminals and charlatan scamming dirtbags have surfaced.

Funny you kind of guys used to be the ones against slimy business and tactics now years later each one of you seems to be revealing yourselves as quite the opposite.

I don't know how many times in the past I've seen both you guys railing hard against these practices and hard against poor business but whenever I make a post I often get swarmed and attacked and often find persons who post frequently differety suddenly now singing a different tune.

I just please ask, knowing of course no one listens or cares, to simply not bother quoting me as quite frankly i accomplished what i was hoping to accomplish by posting again and really I don't want to come back to this place.

At least seeing some supposed old pros who supposedly believe in good fair business revealing themselves for the full frontal as definitely only interested in their part of things and not a fair two way relationship, their side of things often by any means necessary, ultimately only furthers my desire to stay away from music or the industry or giving it any sympathy or give it any time or any help nor give back anywhere for anyone.

They rail on about legislation and the Man but ive never seen a more suicidal arrogant industry constantly whiny destroying itself over and over and over again often while proliferating the worst information and selling unrealistic dreams left right and center so their slice is looked after all while wanting some freedom free revolution live outside the law type thing.

Never mind. I'm not unaware, I have a fairly good memory, I see what goes on. Please know you can all now spend some time bullying and pissing and teasing and demeaning while some others steal and defame and serial stalk and intimidate and coerce and extort. It builds leverage and cases so please carry on.

It also lets me know I made the right decision to move on from music and the industry and not waste much time or money or lose any sleep.
Old 3rd February 2018
  #17
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
Interesting and of no cares to me. Luckily Gearslutz isnt my spot and over the years far too many slimy criminals and charlatan scamming dirtbags have surfaced.

Funny you kind of guys used to be the ones against slimy business and tactics now years later each one of you seems to be revealing yourselves as quite the opposite.

I don't know how many times in the past I've seen both you guys railing hard against these practices and hard against poor business but whenever I make a post I often get swarmed and attacked and often find persons who post frequently differety suddenly now singing a different tune.

I just please ask, knowing of course no one listens or cares, to simply not bother quoting me as quite frankly i accomplished what i was hoping to accomplish by posting again and really I don't want to come back to this place.

At least seeing some supposed old pros who supposedly believe in good fair business revealing themselves for the full frontal as definitely only interested in their part of things and not a fair two way relationship, their side of things often by any means necessary, ultimately only furthers my desire to stay away from music or the industry or giving it any sympathy or give it any time or any help nor give back anywhere for anyone.

They rail on about legislation and the Man but ive never seen a more suicidal arrogant industry constantly whiny destroying itself over and over and over again often while proliferating the worst information and selling unrealistic dreams left right and center so their slice is looked after all while wanting some freedom free revolution live outside the law type thing.

Never mind. I'm not unaware, I have a fairly good memory, I see what goes on. Please know you can all now spend some time bullying and pissing and teasing and demeaning while some others steal and defame and serial stalk and intimidate and coerce and extort. It builds leverage and cases so please carry on.

It also lets me know I made the right decision to move on from music and the industry and not waste much time or money or lose any sleep.
I'm not quite sure how to take this. Are you saying I'm (we're) "slimy criminals and charlatan scamming dirtbags"? Cause like you (guessing), I'm against that as well. But...

I think it's 100% OK to have differing opinions, and that's all I wanted to accomplish with my previous post. I disagree with your comments as it seems you (at best) have a limited understanding of what "re-titling" is all about. One completely legit version of retitling a song is with a publisher who has limited time (3-5 year) to license the song when it stands a good chance to eventually be taken back by the original owner (composer). Without retitling, they loose their effort in what is a long term investment, and ultimately that hurts the composer - as well as the publisher (re-titler).

Respectful (non name-calling) disagreement makes for interesting discussion. Bullying and name calling (as you seem prone to) has no place here IMO. At any rate, I'm not into calling names, so perhaps you are right, and GS is not for you when you say "and really I don't want to come back to this place."

If you want no one to quote or respond to you, I'd respectfully suggest you might be more careful in what you post. ???

See ya....
Old 3rd February 2018
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Desire Inspires's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
It also lets me know I made the right decision to move on from music and the industry and not waste much time or money or lose any sleep.
Amen to that!
Old 4th February 2018
  #19
Wow.......
Old 4th February 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Desire Inspires's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
Wow.......
Over 8 million views? I think I need to step my game up and make some cat videos.

Last edited by Desire Inspires; 5th February 2018 at 05:09 PM..
Old 5th February 2018
  #21
Lives for gear
 

I thought that songs went public domain a certain amount of years after the authors death? How is it that “Happy birthday” is still under copyright?
Old 5th February 2018
  #22
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump