|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Jan 14, 2015 19:34:38 GMT -6
To me there is no justification, stealing is stealing. If the artist made a bad deal with the record company that's their problem not mine. How do I know ? I choose to buy my music. Sozocaps, I hear what you are saying and like you I prefer to purchase music, not for any other reason other than I like having it. I have a lot of friends (most in fact) who disagree and prefer the subscription model such as Spotify. Mostly, they say that they prefer these sites because of cost and convenience. They get to listen to whatever is a hit amongst or is suggested by their friends, and they don't feel bad about it because it is totally legal. Would they buy this music if Spotify didn't exist? Probably not. In fact most of them just play music they already own in one form or another and just don't want to deal with the hassle of migrating libraries from Vinyl, CD or iTunes and Spotify works on all their devices. Spotify did a test a while ago to see if they could raise their monthly rates, and they found out that (like Netflix) their customers have been trained to expect to pay no more than $10/month for access to on demand music of their choice. That seems to be about the rate that all the music streaming services charge. This is really no different than Netflix or Hulu. Once a film gets onto a streaming service, it stops making money. In fact, those services don't even have to pay per play, they just pay one lump sum for streaming rights that have an expiration. Unlike music streaming, video streaming services don't usually get first run films. Would it be better for the industry if the music streaming services made deals like this? They would pay a lump sum for streaming rights to a library for a limited amount of time. I'm not sure how this would get broken up and paid out, but at least there would be built in expiration dates. Or maybe a third party like ASCAP should hold in trust streaming rights to music and make the deals themselves. They would be responsible for paying the rights holders themselves. Maybe I am way off base here, but I think that we all can agree that we as a society must agree that music has more value than coffee. AD |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Jan 14, 2015 19:35:40 GMT -6
If so, how is that not against Antitrust laws? Collusion much? I think it's only collusion if they own a controlling share for which they would have to get FTC or FCC approval. AD |
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Jan 14, 2015 19:46:01 GMT -6
The whole thing sounds like politicians with oil interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 14, 2015 23:17:03 GMT -6
How did the radio stations do it... Why cant the net follow suite? The problem is exactly like AD put it, make it like the movies. The problem is the song or album gets streamed in great quality the first week it's out so there is almost NO chance of it making money. Again what did the radio stations pay the record company/artist per play ?
|
|
|
|
Post by levon on Jan 15, 2015 0:35:01 GMT -6
How did the radio stations do it... Why cant the net follow suite? The problem is exactly like AD put it, make it like the movies. The problem is the song or album gets streamed in great quality the first week it's out so there is almost NO chance of it making money. Again what did the radio stations pay the record company/artist per play ? Uhm, wasn't it the record companies that paid the radio stations with the artists' money???  |
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 15, 2015 13:19:55 GMT -6
At least someone got paid! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 15, 2015 14:22:01 GMT -6
It's terribly confusing. But let me take a stab at it. The PRO's negotiated a "per impression" rate with radio. It's some tiny amount like what Spotify pays - .000113 or something. BUT radio's impressions are calculated by multiplying them times the amount of audience that "could" have heard it when it was spun. So, you get a spin on a Houston radio station at noon - the predetermined audience that that station reaches at noon is (lets guess) 100,000. So, it is determined to have 100,000 impressions. That's one spin, one day, one moment - 100k "impressions". .000113 x 100,000 = $11.30 So, in essence, that spin was worth $11.30. Lets say that it is spun 4 times that day. That song made $45.20 that one day. A number one song in Country averages about 5000 spins per week. So, $56,500 per week. A typical Country No.1 might spend 35 weeks on the chart to reach No.1. That would be $1,977,500 dollars in performance royalties split between Publishers and songwriters. That's really high, so my math is bad somewhere, but you get the general idea...
WELL, the streaming peeps came in and said, "we shouldn't have to pay more per impression than radio..." so the rate is the same per impression. The problem is that the radio rate was reached with the multiplier known to all parties. There is no multiplier with streaming. The audience is one. 1 stream = 1 impression. My argument is that because of that, streaming rates should be DRAMATICALLY higher. Because of a copyright law passed in the 1940's, anti-trust laws - ASCAP/BMI/SESAC (Performing Rights Organizations) aren't allowed to negotiate different rates for licensing. If you make a deal with radio, it has to be the same deal with everyone else or not be able to grant a license. The Songwriter's Equity Act in Congress is currently being lobbied to change these draconian laws. BTW - the 1940 Copyright laws have been updated in the 70's but the last time it was updated was before the ipod was invented in the early 2000's.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 15, 2015 14:35:34 GMT -6
It is simple do not give your music to those services as long they want to fool you and your art.
I do not understand why the discussions holds on take stuff of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 15, 2015 14:37:03 GMT -6
John - As I mentioned earlier - I'm not on the side of streaming tech, but I'd hazard a guess that terrestrial radio is reaching at least 1000 times more listeners than spotify is. People in their cars, people in stores, people who don't have computers 24/7, people that just plain don't know Spotify exists. So, all things being equal, when radio is gone and people figure out how to access music and all those listeners transition over to spotify or the like, THEORETICALLY you could add 3 zeros to the end of Pharrell's numbers or whoever's. That makes things a lot closer.
Comparing the gross income of a huge box store like home depot (terrestrial radio) to the gross income of a local puny one man hardware store (spotify) is not really fair unless you go impression to impression or in the hardware case profit to profit. Right now, writers, et al have TWO income streams. Radio AND Streaming. At some point, it will most likely be streaming ONLY, and at that point the numbers SHOULD be similar. Until then, we still need to fight for fairness and equity, but some arguments out there are extremely biased - in both directions. It's a hard paradigm to grab ahold of and the more educated we can be the better.... My $.02 which has dwindled down to $.000457 in 2015. LOL
PS - I appreciate your efforts to inform and explain on these issues. <thumbsup>
|
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 15, 2015 15:09:29 GMT -6
It's terribly confusing. But let me take a stab at it. The PRO's negotiated a "per impression" rate with radio. It's some tiny amount like what Spotify pays - .000113 or something. BUT radio's impressions are calculated by multiplying them times the amount of audience that "could" have heard it when it was spun. So, you get a spin on a Houston radio station at noon - the predetermined audience that that station reaches at noon is (lets guess) 100,000. So, it is determined to have 100,000 impressions. That's one spin, one day, one moment - 100k "impressions". .000113 x 100,000 = $11.30 So, in essence, that spin was worth $11.30. Lets say that it is spun 4 times that day. That song made $45.20 that one day. A number one song in Country averages about 5000 spins per week. So, $56,500 per week. A typical Country No.1 might spend 35 weeks on the chart to reach No.1. That would be $1,977,500 dollars in performance royalties split between Publishers and songwriters. That's really high, so my math is bad somewhere, but you get the general idea... WELL, the streaming peeps came in and said, "we shouldn't have to pay more per impression than radio..." so the rate is the same per impression. The problem is that the radio rate was reached with the multiplier known to all parties. There is no multiplier with streaming. The audience is one. 1 stream = 1 impression. My argument is that because of that, streaming rates should be DRAMATICALLY higher. Because of a copyright law passed in the 1940's, anti-trust laws - ASCAP/BMI/SESAC (Performing Rights Organizations) aren't allowed to negotiate different rates for licensing. If you make a deal with radio, it has to be the same deal with everyone else or not be able to grant a license. The Songwriter's Equity Act in Congress is currently being lobbied to change these draconian laws. BTW - the 1940 Copyright laws have been updated in the 70's but the last time it was updated was before the ipod was invented in the early 2000's. Yea it's called MULTICAST... its a broadcasted ip address and port (a channel) that anyone can receive on and there is no way to know how many clients the broadcast has been reflected to. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,103 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jan 15, 2015 21:38:31 GMT -6
One thing to remember is that Radios Audience size has for the most part been based on estimates ( Arbatration) streaming and multicast both have the ability to show how many computers were listening.
Bill makes a great point if and when streaming becomes the standard the revenue will be there, but the problem is as it so often is trying to survive the transition .
The other problem at this point is radio is its own worse enemy. consolidation has pretty much lead to the fact that as you move across the country you can pretty much find the same station down the dial mad carding as something differnt as the first station starts to fade.
|
|
|
|
Post by clonewar on Jan 15, 2015 23:00:46 GMT -6
The problem is, what happens to those numbers if the music streaming lobby is successful in their attempt to drastically lower what they have to pay the rights holders per stream? (Anywhere up to 92%). SoundExchange is trying to get the rates increased so there's some hope, but there are some big interests that want it lowered. It's also hard to compare to radio because back in the day radio listens led to album sales. Now, Pandora and Spotify streams lead to....more Pandora and Spotify streams. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 15, 2015 23:39:57 GMT -6
Like I mentioned, we still need to keep fighting. I'm not saying Spotify and Pandora will replace album sales money, but with a little luck, they MAY equal what songwriters made on terrestrial radio broadcast. The demand for music is no less than it ever was - just the fact that now we have to deal with piracy and of a different form of delivery. The music and film content providers are lobbying as well. The only thing we can do is keep a good attitude and keep up the fight. Without either, we lose. Complaining and giving up get us nowhere. Thinking outside the box and keeping a solid front moves us forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 16, 2015 0:49:41 GMT -6
I agree - streaming is most likely the future - and I'm not for cutting our nose off in spite of our face...BUT, t is not my responsibility to front these businesses money so they can get off of their feet and be solvent. If they can't make money like everyone else (and NONE of them have posted a profit EVEN robbing songwriter's blind) then there's something wrong.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,103
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jan 16, 2015 1:34:04 GMT -6
I agree - streaming is most likely the future - and I'm not for cutting our nose off in spite of our face...BUT, t is not my responsibility to front these businesses money so they can get off of their feet and be solvent. If they can't make money like everyone else (and NONE of them have posted a profit EVEN robbing songwriter's blind) then there's something wrong. Well the big boys, the labels will tell you yes that's what they are doing but it's your money they are really fronting! It's hard to say what these companies are thinking, will they become the next clear channel? Or will everybody cash out on a bubble with a great Golden parachute ? My fear is we devalue music so much and dilute the market to the point where somebody who writes #1 hits still has to work at Starbucks , because #1 means less than 1000 plays! |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 16, 2015 9:44:18 GMT -6
I agree - streaming is most likely the future - and I'm not for cutting our nose off in spite of our face...BUT, t is not my responsibility to front these businesses money so they can get off of their feet and be solvent. If they can't make money like everyone else (and NONE of them have posted a profit EVEN robbing songwriter's blind) then there's something wrong. Agreed. Their business modes doesn't work. The only reason traditional broadcast works is because of advertising. Now people think they can have it all (streaming) with NO advertising, for NOTHING. Doesn't work. Hopefully they'll figure it out. On a brighter note, BMI royalties are out today and mine were up 10%, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's because of additional placements, not better collections on BMI's part..... |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 16, 2015 10:45:32 GMT -6
Re: Q2 2014 payouts for songwriter / composers.
On the Spotify / Netflix / Youtube note.....
At this stage a song placed on Burn Notice (this is of course a re-run that placed several years ago) is paying on Spotify about as much as it pays on a couple of cheezeball Cable TV networks.... so....we're making some progress there. But a world of fairness to go..,,,,
Spotify - still fairly dismal.
Youtube - starting to pay out. I personally had no idea how much of my music was getting used by people on youtube. At this point, it's gone from barely paying for a single happy meal @ mickyD's to a decent meal for two @ Applebee's. Progress. But a world of fairness to go..,,,,
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 16, 2015 13:41:02 GMT -6
My opinion is that 90% of gross streaming income ought to be split between artists and songwriters. Streamers just need to find a business model that supports the creation of music. Lacking that, they deserve to go out of business with their stockholders losing everything. This is called "capitalism."
US artists got royally screwed by the radio industry in the late '40s. In Sweden artists and writers split around seven DOLLARS a play and it certainly hasn't destroyed broadcasting. That's the elephant in the royalty room.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 16, 2015 17:21:10 GMT -6
My opinion is that 90% of gross streaming income ought to be split between artists and songwriters. Streamers just need to find a business model that supports the creation of music. Lacking that, they deserve to go out of business with their stockholders losing everything. This is called "capitalism." US artists got royally screwed by the radio industry in the late '40s. In Sweden artists and writers split around seven DOLLARS a play and it certainly hasn't destroyed broadcasting. That's the elephant in the royalty room. Can I give this ten thumbs up?? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 16, 2015 22:40:57 GMT -6
Really! European radio is a hell of a lot easier on the ears too.
I actually think streaming could be the future but it needs to be owned by performers and I'd prefer live performances. In other words, 1930s and '40s style music radio. You could probably find local advertisers to support this. While people can listen in from all over the world, only a local focus can earn money. Worldwide reach is pointless unless you have boots on the ground to actually sell advertising and collect the money.
These idiot's streaming sounds just like 1950s FM radio, a robot playing music. It didn't make money then and it probably can't now.
|
|
