To me this seems more like a single anecdote; as opposed to something I would based my business on. I followed the links, but could not find any statement / quotes from the Pythons themselves.
I'd love to see these quantified differently; but following the links doesn't appear to shed any light on it. What does number 2 on Amazon.com mean in terms of units sold or dollars profit? How were other avenues of sale affected? What were sales before?
Does the increase relate directly to units sold? Or does it relate to sales rank increase?
Despite the headline in the Fox News site; the actual report does not use the term bailout. They are offering incentives. Doesn't government offer such incentives to public / private businesses all the time [at both the local and federal level]?
I just wanted to say; as a gigging band, we had played at venues who used the "all original music" argument to the royalty societies and were able to get them to back down.
The missteps 'we' made as band in terms of self-promotion could fill multiple books. I'm smarter now in that area; but am devoting my efforts to other non-musical expenditures.
The low cost of recording technology makes it easy to create good quality recordings. The Internet makes it easy to make those recordings available at low cost.
Neither of those things lead to exposure, however. They only lead to the possibility of exposure. Just having songs on the Internet is just a small portion of being a successful musician.
I didn't mean to insinuate either situation was a problem. It is up to the band [aka business] to decide whether it is a good deal for that band [or not].
I just meant to say that bands are not necessarily making lots of money from gigging / touring.
I don't know how to judge who is--or is not--deserving to make a living off music. I'd say the guy in the pub working his arse off is probably more deserving than corporate manufactured pop such as the Jonas Brothers.
But, every band [every business] I've ever known has started somewhere with the intent on growing.
On CD Sales:
An independent artist is not on a label and therefore a CD sale is all profit. They make $10 or $15 or whatever they can charge. They do have to pay the upfront cost of CD production. It is unlikely in this scenario that they'll sell 10 million copies, though.
On your touring numbers:
How many independent bands sell 1000 tickets a night?
Of the two 1000 people+ venues in CT that book independent / original bands; the bands get paid based on ticket sales.
At one venue; the band gets $1 dollar for every ticket after 50 of theirs that comes through the door. So, if they get 100 people through the door; make $50.
With the other venue; the band has to buy 50 tickets @ $10 a piece to get booked. This is a pay to play contract. If the band can sell those tickets, they'll make the money back. IF they cal sell more tickets; they make even more money. Otherwise the show is a complete loss. The band with the least ticket sales plays first; and the band with the most ticket sales plays last.
I'd love to see a source for your claim that bands split the ticket price with the venue.
I suppose I will caveat this with the fact that I stopped being in a gigging band about four years ago. However I doubt things have changed in the past four years as much as you claim.
Of the thousands / millions of bands out there; I wonder how many are actually making money off touring. Touring has traditionally been viewed as a "loss leader" in order to sell CDs. The article doesn't state how much of that goes to actual musicians.
If Dave Matthews Band adds another couple of tour dates; they easily bring in ten million or more.
The band you saw at Joe's Bar last Friday is lucky to leave there w/ $300 (split 5 ways)
It was the same in Computer Science; at All Universities
When I went to school for computer science; this type of thing came up a lot. Common belief was that if you were a student, the school owned the rights to stuff you wrote, even if it was on your own time, in your own place, on your own equipment, and had no relation to school assignments. It was definitely a tricky issue for those working full time jobs and getting a degree at night. As long as you were a student they could lay claim.
Absolutely Ridiculous / troublesome. It sounds like DigiPen is just following the 'industry standard' for this sort of thing.
I never quite understood it; and do not agree with it. But, it sounds like a pretty good business model from a business owner perspective. I think I'm going to patent it.
[Quote]
"I'm quite confused as to how the same company could make both of those decisions in the course of a single week"
[End Quote]
It boggles my mind how this would confuse someone. You've never worked for a with a large company I take it? Or on a smaller scale, tried to pick out which color to paint your living room with a significant other.
The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.
For other avenues of sale, such as retail CD sales, the artist usually gets a percentage of wholesale not a fixed fee. I can't understand why it would be different for digital sales.
Most professional recording contracts do not use such licensing rates; artists are paid by a percentage of sales. As such, I have a hard time understanding how this would affect iTunes directly.
"if McCain wanted to use [a song] at an event, he could as long as he paid the proper performance licensing fees"
Actually, it is the venue that is required to pay performance licenses, not the people renting out the venue. So, in this case "Xcel Energy Center" would have had to pay, not the RNC or McCain.
I would assume that the venue has some outstanding contract with all the relevant licensing companies to pay some flat fee. The licensing companies use some random sampling of all venues to figure out who gets paid for song use. At least that is the way it used to work.
If I understand correctly, the the venue contracts take into account live performance. So, if my cover band plays Van Halen's "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love" in a dive bar, in theory the venue is paying performance royalties and the song writers (Van Halen) get kickbacks.
If Van Hagar plays the same song in a huge stadium, then David Lee Roth is still getting songwriting kickbacks, since he is a co-writer of the song.
A concept might be "A world where superheroes are depicted as real people". I think the story that different people would create around that concept would be radically different.
Watchmen is much more than a concept. It has specific characters and plot. If the creator of the work wants to sell exclusive rights to that work, then I see no reason to disallow him from that.
A concept might be a "man who can fly"; yet Hancock and Superman are radically different.
On the post: Monty Python's Meaning Of Free: The Holy Grail Of Massively Increased Sales
Re:
On the post: Monty Python's Meaning Of Free: The Holy Grail Of Massively Increased Sales
I'd love to see this quantified differently
I'd love to see these quantified differently; but following the links doesn't appear to shed any light on it. What does number 2 on Amazon.com mean in terms of units sold or dollars profit? How were other avenues of sale affected? What were sales before?
Does the increase relate directly to units sold? Or does it relate to sales rank increase?
On the post: Connecticut Government Bails Out Newspapers
On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers
That was quite a while ago, though.
On the post: Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records
Re: Re: . . .
On the post: Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records
Re: Re: Re: Re: . . .
The low cost of recording technology makes it easy to create good quality recordings. The Internet makes it easy to make those recordings available at low cost.
Neither of those things lead to exposure, however. They only lead to the possibility of exposure. Just having songs on the Internet is just a small portion of being a successful musician.
On the post: Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records
Re: Re: Re: Re: . . .
I just meant to say that bands are not necessarily making lots of money from gigging / touring.
On the post: Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records
Re:
But, every band [every business] I've ever known has started somewhere with the intent on growing.
On the post: Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records
Re: Re: . . .
On the post: Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records
Re: Re: . . .
An independent artist is not on a label and therefore a CD sale is all profit. They make $10 or $15 or whatever they can charge. They do have to pay the upfront cost of CD production. It is unlikely in this scenario that they'll sell 10 million copies, though.
On your touring numbers:
How many independent bands sell 1000 tickets a night?
Of the two 1000 people+ venues in CT that book independent / original bands; the bands get paid based on ticket sales.
At one venue; the band gets $1 dollar for every ticket after 50 of theirs that comes through the door. So, if they get 100 people through the door; make $50.
With the other venue; the band has to buy 50 tickets @ $10 a piece to get booked. This is a pay to play contract. If the band can sell those tickets, they'll make the money back. IF they cal sell more tickets; they make even more money. Otherwise the show is a complete loss. The band with the least ticket sales plays first; and the band with the most ticket sales plays last.
I'd love to see a source for your claim that bands split the ticket price with the venue.
I suppose I will caveat this with the fact that I stopped being in a gigging band about four years ago. However I doubt things have changed in the past four years as much as you claim.
On the post: Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records
. . .
If Dave Matthews Band adds another couple of tour dates; they easily bring in ten million or more.
The band you saw at Joe's Bar last Friday is lucky to leave there w/ $300 (split 5 ways)
On the post: ;-) Available For Yearly License Fee Thanks To Russian Trademark
Re: Re: I'm confused...
I suspect this is just a typo in the techdirt article.
On the post: ;-) Available For Yearly License Fee Thanks To Russian Trademark
I'm confused...
Let's assume that we all agree that trademarks laws exist to protect the consumer from getting confused.
If a company has a unique use of a common symbol for commercial purposes; it seems to me it would not be far fetched to get that use trademarked.
I'm not sure about Russian trademark law, however I wonder what exactly is this guys use of the trademark?
On the post: Video Game Schools Claim Ownership Of Games Created By Students
It was the same in Computer Science; at All Universities
Absolutely Ridiculous / troublesome. It sounds like DigiPen is just following the 'industry standard' for this sort of thing.
I never quite understood it; and do not agree with it. But, it sounds like a pretty good business model from a business owner perspective. I think I'm going to patent it.
On the post: Warner Bros. Make Up Your Mind: Are You Competing With Piracy Or Not?
"I'm quite confused as to how the same company could make both of those decisions in the course of a single week"
[End Quote]
It boggles my mind how this would confuse someone. You've never worked for a with a large company I take it? Or on a smaller scale, tried to pick out which color to paint your living room with a significant other.
The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.
On the post: Sued For Libel Over eBay Feedback
Did the Buyer say...
I always wonder about the stuff that isn't said in such articles.
Can sellers still comment on feedback? If so, why didn't the seller do so, saying he was sorry for problems and provided a full refund?
Can the seller still complain to eBay and try to remove feedback? Did the seller take that route?
Did the buyer say anything like "seller provided full refund"? I think it would have been good for the buyer to say that in his feedback.
On the post: Copyright Royalty Board Keeps Download Rates The Same; iTunes 'Saved'
Re: Re: I don't get it...
On the post: Copyright Royalty Board Keeps Download Rates The Same; iTunes 'Saved'
I don't get it...
On the post: Heart Demanding McCain Campaign Stop Using Its Song
One Correction
Actually, it is the venue that is required to pay performance licenses, not the people renting out the venue. So, in this case "Xcel Energy Center" would have had to pay, not the RNC or McCain.
I would assume that the venue has some outstanding contract with all the relevant licensing companies to pay some flat fee. The licensing companies use some random sampling of all venues to figure out who gets paid for song use. At least that is the way it used to work.
If I understand correctly, the the venue contracts take into account live performance. So, if my cover band plays Van Halen's "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love" in a dive bar, in theory the venue is paying performance royalties and the song writers (Van Halen) get kickbacks.
If Van Hagar plays the same song in a huge stadium, then David Lee Roth is still getting songwriting kickbacks, since he is a co-writer of the song.
Did I miss my point somewhere?
On the post: Fox Tries To Kill Watchmen
Watchmen is more than just a "concept"
A concept might be "A world where superheroes are depicted as real people". I think the story that different people would create around that concept would be radically different.
Watchmen is much more than a concept. It has specific characters and plot. If the creator of the work wants to sell exclusive rights to that work, then I see no reason to disallow him from that.
A concept might be a "man who can fly"; yet Hancock and Superman are radically different.
Next >>