Sorry, everyone. Music is dying, better change careers now!

Not sure I disagree. Corporate welfare at its finest. It 100% benefits billion dollar corporations and screws the common person. Wonder why there can't be a class action lawsuit?

"Sorry, everyone. Music is dying, better change careers now!"

"no one can make a living from composing anymore"



Really? I made more last year than any year since I started in music full time 30 years ago. Maybe I was just a slow starter? Nevertheless I bought a house and raised a family in LA on a musicians income..... Go figure.

Maybe I'll retire then since it's "over"


BTW, the Justice department has their head up their collective ***es, and are no doubt firmly in the back pocket of the tech industry. No surprise there. Tech owns the government outright.

Bill, are you strictly in a work-for-hire career? or are you tied to earning a large part of your income from royalties?


I bet the work-for-hire folks(sidemen, session players, arrangers, mixers, etc) will be ok, as will the people who rely exclusively on performing live to survive. But the writers and suppliers of content (those that do the hiring and producing) are the ones who will be hurt the most. Almost all of my income is as a work-for-hire (strings/horns) or playing live (church gigs/wedding bands). I feel sorry for the folks that supply music to library companies. That whole pay scheme that goes with library music is one of the reasons I never got involved with that type of work.

Royalties.  With a touch of work for hire.  (I've been trying to ease out of work for hire in favor of royalties, but old clients keep reeling me back in.  :-)  )

My experience does not equal your experience.  I'm not saying yours is inaccurate, but that mine does not back up your statistics / views.

That's sync for television and film. Many times a lump sum and then royalties that pay at a competitive rate. Sure - radio still pays great - if you have a single. Less people have singles every year than play in the NFL. Every time you compose something that is seen on TV or film, that's akin to having a single - pays differently but still fantastically compared to the streaming thieves. THIS is the crux of the issue. I want the right to DENY allowing my music on streaming services. But the government won't allow me. I would like to be able to negotiate that rate. But the government won't allow me. So - the rate ASCAP and BMI negotiated with radio HAS to be the same rate that is given to Spotify et al. Well, the only reason that rate (lets say .00011 cents) was negotiated with radio is because it has ALWAYS been multiplied by the audience that listens when the song plays. So - they know that in Chicago at WFKU at noon there 100k listeners. They multiply .00011 x 100,000 and that equals $11 for that play.

Now Spotibitches comes in and says, "hey - you licensed that song to radio for .00011 cents per spin. And because the government has rules called "consent decrees" that were first designed in the 1940s - by that law, the SAME rate has to apply to everyone. Well, here's the problem - Spotify doesn't have any multiplied formula. One impression equals .00011 cents. So - lets say you have a WORLDWIDE hit and it is listened to 10,000,000 times on Spotify. 10,000,000 x .00011 = $1100.

$1100 for 10 Million spins. Is that fair?
Oh, if you co-wrote it you get to split that with your co-writer.

I'd just like to be able to continue doing this for a living. I'm not asking to be paid like - say - a Pandora employee.

?  ?  ?

I agree with everything you said except that.  First, the streaming thieves are taking over TV as well.  And Film does not pay in the US until it hits TV.  So......While technically you might be right, having one single on radio a year could keep you alive financially.  Depending on where you live, OK - two singles.  Unless you're talking the theme for a major network constant in rotation show like the theme for "the Voice", you'd better have thousands of plays, be worldwide based, and been doing it a long time so you have syndicated shows in play.  Every play nets maybe $0.50 to maybe $18 per play. - and that's for tens to hundreds of thousands of people per play and it's more often towards the smaller.  That's a LOT of plays in a quarter to make 3 months worth of income.  It's not for the weak, lazy, "write a song a week", or short term money seekers.  I'd guess that I have 500 to a thousand shows playing any particular quarter, and on average 5-15 pieces per show.  That's a LOT of plays, and it's not like I'm making a killing or a becoming an instant millionaire.  But it's a living.

I feel for the songwriters who are still working the old school paradigm.  It'd rough, no doubt.  Seems like it's a part time occupation now, with the balance of time having a "real" job.  It shouldn't be like that.  Congress should get off their asses.  I say vote out EVERY incumbent regardless of their record.  Get the message across that they work for us on a temporary basis - 4-8 years and that's it.  Until then, expect more of the same BS and back room antics while high tech corporate lobbyists buy off the little guy for their own mega-profit.

Did I just break the politics rule???  

Hahahaaaaa!!

I never curse but Fuck this government... Fuck them...

Viacom sued Youtube, but Youtube won. The judge ruled that Youtube did not  (A) have knowledge or awareness of any specific infringements … ; (B)  willfully blinded itself …; (C) know whether had had the “right and ability to control” infringing activity …; and (D) Whether any clips … were syndicated ….

Viacom dropped the suit, apparently with no money being exchanged.

The government is pretty hard to sue. But there are laws which bring about civil litigation, but as you can see the judge ruled in favor of Youtube  despite clear evidence that they are breaking the law.  Who believes that Youtube doesn't know that copyright protected content is being illegally uploaded to their site, but are turning a blind eye?

The bottom line to me is that "the government"  is politicians dependent on tech money. The same is true of banking money etc. This is why I'm so opposed to Citizens United, which  only broadened the ability for the big tech companies and banks  to influence laws and policies. Laws don't matter when political money is involved. We saw that in the 2008 banking fraud and we're seeing it in this copyright and royalties fight.

I'm 22 years into studio world, and i've yet to encounter a situation that would net me a royalty payment. I could make myself broke lawyering up contracts for those who never sell a thing, and the few that do sell wouldn't balance it out. I got a single royalty check in 1994 for a band i was in. Under a dollar. So pardon if it seems a bit esoteric. I'm clearly operating in a backwater.