Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
by popular , I mean a 'hit'. The PRO's "sampling" of terrestrial radio never fails to collect on a hit. Yes it is awful that artists with small amounts of plays fall thru the cracks and all that income goes to hitmakers. Also exactly true what you say about performance royalties in the United States. GEMA requires a set list with publishing breakdown for all live shows. For once I love doing paperwork! I don't see how unfairnesses or injustices in the collection system justify replacing it with a system that diverts all proceeds to Wall St investors.
Compulsory licenses were a benefit to broadcasters to minimize costs and clearances. They worked out great for songwriters and composers but in the United States, musicians got no piece of the pie. Songwriters and recording artists DON'T want compulsory licenses for internet streaming. We would greatly prefer to negotiate streaming licenses in an open market.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
The market IS working, for Google! Music is an essential part of modern commerce. Music is desired, therefore valuable and now as thruout the last century, works symbiotically with advertising revenue. The collection agencies distribute ad money from broadcast media, but Google has hijacked ad revenue from the internet so basically none goes back to the creators. This is class warfare , conducted by the Libertarian investor class against the creative community. The tech lords covet intellectual property, like the Conquistadors coveted the gold of the Incas. Meanwhile, the Koch brothers wish to stifle the voice of artists because artists have so effectively promoted progressive social change for 2 centuries. So there is a struggle between the the emerging 'Lords' and those of us who are resisting serfdom. I don't see this as a moral issue, but a functional issue of where will art come from when there are no new artists? In the 80s and 90s most touring artists were in their 20s, now most are in their 50s. I love the old geezers but this is not a healthy sign for the future!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
I don't understand… Why would a 'small time musician' be expecting 'real money' ? Twenty bucks for a long list of titles? If just ONE of those titles was popular, he would have a big check.
It's almost cute how naive and clueless this study is. Just like similarly clueless academic reports that because Wall Street profits are up, the economy is good. But it's true there is as much money in music as ever. Actually profits are higher than ever before because almost no money is spent developing new acts! All the money is going to 'legacy' acts like Madonna, the Stones, U2… Ticket sales are markedly down in numbers but drastically higher in price. (average ticket for Rolling Stones: $500) So the music economy, just like the rest of the economy is only benefiting the 1% The accurate part of the study mentions how useless take down notices are. It's also true that not all the news in the music business is bad: The music festivals that are getting bigger and longer and new artists are getting great exposure. The problem is that touring is never profitable for smaller acts and even mid-level artists have only sustained their careers from broadcast royalties . The transitional stage the music business is in is no worse than pre-Motown/British Invasion or pre-Punk/New Wave. The commercial and artistic breakthroughs of those eras happened because of the entrepreneurial incentives for people like Berry Gordy, Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham. But the entrepreneurs of today are internet cloud-barons reigning over a feudal structure of unpaid musical serfs. If the music streaming services can graduate from a venture capital-Ponzi scheme model into truly viable businesses, then maybe they can fill the gap being left by dwindling radio and television royalties. Advertising is what supported musicians for the last 90 years and music is even more integral to commerce than ever. Torrent sites lower the bar for ad rates, helping to create a junk mail landscape of online advertising. This hurts music much more than downloading. If the torrent sites are allowed to continue unmolested but cut out of the advertising business they will provide a very healthy underground community that promotes creativity, while the streaming services would get higher ad rates which would save the music scene.
artists aren't complaining about collection agencies because the collection agencies pay very decently. I can live from my BMI payments but my streaming services income would barely pay my netflix subscription.
Spotify is a great deal for music fans and for artists and labels who want more exposure. Artist who are already popular don't get much out of it even though they are what brings in the listeners.
When the piracy sites are eliminated, the streaming services can get a better price for their product and advertising and they can offer better royalties to musicians.
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
Yes it is awful that artists with small amounts of plays fall thru the cracks and all that income goes to hitmakers.
Also exactly true what you say about performance royalties in the United States.
GEMA requires a set list with publishing breakdown for all live shows. For once I love doing paperwork!
I don't see how unfairnesses or injustices in the collection system justify replacing it with a system that diverts all proceeds to Wall St investors.
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: Compulsory licenses
Songwriters and recording artists DON'T want compulsory licenses for internet streaming. We would greatly prefer to negotiate streaming licenses in an open market.
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
Music is an essential part of modern commerce.
Music is desired, therefore valuable and now as thruout the last century, works symbiotically with advertising revenue. The collection agencies distribute ad money from broadcast media, but Google has hijacked ad revenue from the internet so basically none goes back to the creators.
This is class warfare , conducted by the Libertarian investor class against the creative community.
The tech lords covet intellectual property, like the Conquistadors coveted the gold of the Incas. Meanwhile, the Koch brothers wish to stifle the voice of artists because artists have so effectively promoted progressive social change for 2 centuries.
So there is a struggle between the the emerging 'Lords' and those of us who are resisting serfdom.
I don't see this as a moral issue, but a functional issue of where will art come from when there are no new artists?
In the 80s and 90s most touring artists were in their 20s, now most are in their 50s.
I love the old geezers but this is not a healthy sign for the future!
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
Why would a 'small time musician' be expecting 'real money' ?
Twenty bucks for a long list of titles?
If just ONE of those titles was popular, he would have a big check.
On the post: London School Of Economics Study Shows, Yet Again, That The Music Industry Is Thriving, Not Dying
LSE
Just like similarly clueless academic reports that because Wall Street profits are up, the economy is good.
But it's true there is as much money in music as ever. Actually profits are higher than ever before because almost no money is spent developing new acts!
All the money is going to 'legacy' acts like Madonna, the Stones, U2…
Ticket sales are markedly down in numbers but drastically higher in price.
(average ticket for Rolling Stones: $500)
So the music economy, just like the rest of the economy is only benefiting the 1%
The accurate part of the study mentions how useless take down notices are. It's also true that not all the news in the music business is bad:
The music festivals that are getting bigger and longer and new artists are getting great exposure. The problem is that touring is never profitable for smaller acts and even mid-level artists have only sustained their careers from broadcast royalties .
The transitional stage the music business is in is no worse than pre-Motown/British Invasion or pre-Punk/New Wave. The commercial and artistic breakthroughs of those eras happened because of the entrepreneurial incentives for people like Berry Gordy, Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham. But the entrepreneurs of today are internet cloud-barons reigning over a feudal structure of unpaid musical serfs.
If the music streaming services can graduate from a venture capital-Ponzi scheme model into truly viable businesses, then maybe they can fill the gap being left by dwindling radio and television royalties.
Advertising is what supported musicians for the last 90 years and music is even more integral to commerce than ever. Torrent sites lower the bar for ad rates, helping to create a junk mail landscape of online advertising.
This hurts music much more than downloading.
If the torrent sites are allowed to continue unmolested but cut out of the advertising business they will provide a very healthy underground community that promotes creativity, while the streaming services would get higher ad rates which would save the music scene.
On the post: Pulling Music Off Spotify Sends Exactly The Wrong Message
the income comes from songwriting
Musician's pay the rent and eat from their songwriting income.
On the post: Pulling Music Off Spotify Sends Exactly The Wrong Message
collection agencies vs streaming
Spotify is a great deal for music fans and for artists and labels who want more exposure. Artist who are already popular don't get much out of it even though they are what brings in the listeners.
When the piracy sites are eliminated, the streaming services can get a better price for their product and advertising and they can offer better royalties to musicians.
Next >>