|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 11:03:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 11:14:07 GMT -6
Note: some contracts are setup where advances/draws/salary from the Publisher is recouped from performance royalties. I've never (and would never) sign one like that. That would basically mean this scenario:
You sign a deal with X Publisher for $20,000 a year advance/draw/salary. The contract includes recoupment on performance royalties.
Then in year three, you get a No.1 song on (Lets just say Country) radio.
The PRO collects $300,000 for your No.1 in performance royalties. Half of that goes to your co-writer.
BUT, you've been paid $60,000 in advance/draw/salary for the past three years, so $60k goes to the Publisher to "recoup" first. You then get the remaining $90k.
Traditionally, publishers only recouped on Mechanical royalties (the sale of physical copies and now some formula with streaming)...
However, considering album sales are down like a 1000%, I'm not sure if recouping on performance royalties isn't a common thing now.
Now, the publisher is taking the chance on you...lets say you never get that No.1 hit...and they let you go after year three. They're out $60k. They own your publishing (or a percentage of it) and can attempt to get the songs cut in the future. But honestly, there's a window for songs since they're written in the style of the day...
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 11:25:19 GMT -6
Don't feel sorry for the Publisher, though, because the Publisher makes the same amount in "Publishing Royalties" as the writer makes in "Performance Royalties." Those Publishing Royalties just don't count against your recoupment.
Lets say you signed the contract where the Publisher only recouped on mechanical royalties. In the above scenario, The songwriter would make $150k in performance royalties and the publisher would make $150k in publishing royalties. However, none of that $150k in Publishing Royalties is counted towards recoupment. So on paper, the songwriter is still "in the hole" $60,000 for the 3 years of advances. They would continue to recoup on mechanicals until you paid back the $60k, and they own the publishing for perpetuity. Usually, there are provisions in any contract that are "Reversion Clauses." Meaning, on any songs that weren't "exploited" - recorded - during the contract, the publishing will revert back to the songwriter in a per-determined amount of years after the termination of the contract. Meaning, you get your songs back after 3-5 years. BUT WAIT! You have to be recouped for that to happen! So, if the publisher is only recouping on mechanicals, that means you would have to be on almost 700,000 albums sold to recoup. Even though you made them $150k with the single.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 11:30:17 GMT -6
If someone notices any mistakes I've made above, please correct me. It's a lot to take in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 12:38:04 GMT -6
If someone notices any mistakes I've made above, please correct me. It's a lot to take in. I need to read all that a few times, do you have to also hire an accountant - it sounds complicated ? Just out of interest had a look at my "payments" from streams. They are all over the place even from the same site (eg iTunes varies between $.0033 and $.0013 per stream). Spotify varies between $.0029 and $.0071 per stream. Google seems the best at $.0057, with Deezer $.0052. Oh and the amazing Rumblefish - $.0005 - wankers .... |
|
|
|
Post by stratboy on Mar 9, 2017 12:54:11 GMT -6
Signed
|
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Mar 9, 2017 13:04:55 GMT -6
Not enough this is our music we own and create unfortunately the " ownership has been blurred " ... if you can buy a single for 1.29 off iTunes ( donattist still get 50-70% of the 1.29? ) then Streaming should be half of that like 50cents per stream maybe 25 cents split it 3 ways the artist the company the investor everybody eats equally Not even remotely realistic. Every streaming media business would cease to exist overnight. Heck, if the purchase price of a legitimately obtained CD/mp3/ogg/flac/etc had to be paid every other time it was played, we'd quickly end up in a situation where pirating would be even more rampant. |
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Mar 9, 2017 13:20:28 GMT -6
Not enough this is our music we own and create unfortunately the " ownership has been blurred " ... if you can buy a single for 1.29 off iTunes ( donattist still get 50-70% of the 1.29? ) then Streaming should be half of that like 50cents per stream maybe 25 cents split it 3 ways the artist the company the investor everybody eats equally Not even remotely realistic. Every streaming media business would cease to exist overnight. Heck, if the purchase price of a legitimately obtained CD/mp3/ogg/flac/etc had to be paid every other time it was played, we'd quickly end up in a situation where pirating would be even more rampant. I have to Pay to play... do you work for free? Cuz .00007 x 1,000,000 is sooo much money ( Pharrell example from above ) 😀 I stated that would be split so at 20 cents a stream x 43,000,000 (43 mil streams ) is 8,600,000 divided by 3 ( company, investor, artist ) 2.87 mil rounded up per each then if the artist is the songwriter they are good. If the artist is not the songwriter obviously the artist and songwriter ( pub or label ) would have an agreement based on a percentage of the artists 1/3 in this case 2.87 mil... So say the songwriter then" HAS THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE" ( what we are fighting for ) then the songwriter could earn whatever of the Streaming royalties say 30% the songwriter would earn almost 860,000 for the Streaming... now this song has to be a huge hit that I streamed 43 million times... Supposedly 1500 streams = 1 album sale Johnkenn how much do songwriters get per iTunes sale ? Per album sale ? ( idk, they may not, I'm asking not trying to be funny ) |
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Mar 9, 2017 13:53:00 GMT -6
Not even remotely realistic. Every streaming media business would cease to exist overnight. Heck, if the purchase price of a legitimately obtained CD/mp3/ogg/flac/etc had to be paid every other time it was played, we'd quickly end up in a situation where pirating would be even more rampant. I have to Pay to play... do you work for free? Cuz .00007 x 1,000,000 is sooo much money ( Pharrell example from above ) 😀 That's a cute statement, but if the price is too high then no one will be getting paid anyway, so it's better to find a realistic number. 1,000,000 streams really isn't that many. One instance of playing a track for 1/325th of the citizens in the US. There were probably as many tracks (maybe more) played from streams that were accidentally left running and didn't get heard by anyone just in the last 24 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 9, 2017 13:58:47 GMT -6
Not even remotely realistic. Every streaming media business would cease to exist overnight. Heck, if the purchase price of a legitimately obtained CD/mp3/ogg/flac/etc had to be paid every other time it was played, we'd quickly end up in a situation where pirating would be even more rampant. I have to Pay to play... do you work for free? Cuz .00007 x 1,000,000 is sooo much money ( Pharrell example from above ) 😀 I stated that would be split so at 20 cents a stream x 43,000,000 (43 mil streams ) is 8,600,000 divided by 3 ( company, investor, artist ) 2.87 mil rounded up per each then if the artist is the songwriter they are good. If the artist is not the songwriter obviously the artist and songwriter ( pub or label ) would have an agreement based on a percentage of the artists 1/3 in this case 2.87 mil... So say the songwriter then" HAS THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE" ( what we are fighting for ) then the songwriter could earn whatever of the Streaming royalties say 30% the songwriter would earn almost 860,000 for the Streaming... now this song has to be a huge hit that I streamed 43 million times... Supposedly 1500 streams = 1 album sale Johnkenn how much do songwriters get per iTunes sale ? Per album sale ? ( idk, they may not, I'm asking not trying to be funny ) Even 25 cents/stream wouldn't work. Consumers won't pay even remotely close to that. I have days that I probably stream 30 songs (from my paid subscription FWIW). That's $7.5 for 1 day of streaming. Won't work out. People will just go back to stealing. |
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Mar 9, 2017 14:42:00 GMT -6
jcoutu1 then purchase from iTunes or google play @mo3 same as... you can purchase the cd, or DL purchase via iTunes if Streaming was too costly an option and that is my point I am making 😀Speaking of not having to pay.. People stream music because it's free already ( SoundCloud free, Spotify free with Facebook account, pandora free with "ads", YouTube free, websites free )
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 15:41:14 GMT -6
The video seems factual enough. But he spins it through the conservative lens of "the government is the problem." Sure, outdated regulations are no doubt part of the problem. But I would argue that the bigger crime here is the way corporations like Spotify and Youtube are stealing from artists and fighting regulatory reform. Let's not also forget that for many years writers got the big piece of the royalty pie, while the sidemen and studio musicians that often created the music that hooked in the listener received an hourly wage. So it now strikes me as a tad disingenuous when songwriters cry foul, even though for years their royalty checks were the fruits of an archaic system originally designed around the selling of sheet music. Sidemen and studio owners felt the pinch years ago, and now it's finally caught up with the writers too. I'm hoping that someday all artists can create a new system that benefits everyone involved in recording. He's barking up the wrong tree. Those people are in favor of deregulation for them, not deregulation for US! The "nobility" never favors equal treatment for serfs, and the serfs don't get to define who's who. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 15:53:42 GMT -6
The video seems factual enough. But he spins it through the conservative lens of "the government is the problem." Sure, outdated regulations are no doubt part of the problem. But I would argue that the bigger crime here is the way corporations like Spotify and Youtube are stealing from artists and fighting regulatory reform. Let's not also forget that for many years writers got the big piece of the royalty pie, while the sidemen and studio musicians that often created the music that hooked in the listener received an hourly wage. So it now strikes me as a tad disingenuous when songwriters cry foul, even though for years their royalty checks were the fruits of an archaic system originally designed around the selling of sheet music. Sidemen and studio owners felt the pinch years ago, and now it's finally caught up with the writers too. I'm hoping that someday all artists can create a new system that benefits everyone involved in recording. That's horse shit. Musician's get paid a fair wage because they are unionized. Believe me, after you pay the Health and Welfare, pension, master scale and cartage, they are VERY well taken care of. If they don't like the terms they are working under, they have the option to go where someone will pay them more. Songwriters don't. They are forced - by the government, no less - to take the wage set by the rate court. And then they are forced to sell to anyone that wants it at that rate. I don't have the ability to refuse licensing of my song to certain companies. I have ZERO idea what you mean by writers "got a piece of the royalty pie." What for their intellectual property that THEY created? Imagine that. And BTW, you think .0925% is a big part of the pie?? That's how much a writer gets for a mechanical sale. .09 cents per song for every album sold. THEN split that between the co-writers. THEN pay back the publishers for advances. I've had songs on over 10 million albums and never seen ONE DIME of mechanical royalties. When people say "the royalty pie they're thinking about a huge cherry pie that could feed a banquet. What they don't understand is that the "pie" is actually a 99 cent fried pie from the Quickie Mart. A pie that used to cost 10 cents and contain more than 3 cherries and a big gob of cornstarch. Except that those people want to "conserve" their "right" to rob us blind. They don't regard us as "conservatives", they see us as "leftist radicals". If the "conservatives" in government were even remotely on our side this would be a non-issue, taken care of long ago. Follow the money. See whose pockets in winds up in. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 16:15:34 GMT -6
And yes, the problem is the government is protecting the large corporations because of an anti-trust law established in the 1940s. They claimed that ASCAP was acting as a monopoly and charging rates that buyers couldn't afford. Now, all of the PROs are still bound by that anti-trust ruling and THAT is why we can't negotiate with Pandora, Spotify, Youtube, Amazon, Google, etc. The creator/songwriter is now absolutely exploited by big industry. The government protects the very people that are exploiting the American worker. Absolutely. But it's not a conservative/liberal question anymore, because there really isn't a hell of a lot of difference between "conservative" and "liberal" politicians anymore except empty rhetoric, posturing, and window dressing. We're living in an oligarchy controlled by Big Tech and their siblings in Big Advertising (with a fair bit of kibbitzing from Big Oil and maybe a couple of other rump "Big" industries...). They still "play the game" because it's a convenient way to distract people and keep them under control. The real issues these days are big business vs the people market. It's really kinda funny in a bizarre way..... here we have an intelligent, thoughtful person who, from what it looks like to me identifies fairly strongly as a "conservative" complaining about "exploiting the American worker" - that's COMMIE TALK! Just goes to show - as my daddy used to say "It's all a question of whose ox is being gored!" |
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Mar 9, 2017 16:54:32 GMT -6
you can purchase the cd, or DL purchase via iTunes if Streaming was too costly an option and that is my point I am making I'm sure there are plenty of artists who think that way out there, and they'll get left in the dust and see their fanbase and income shrink, because the rest of the artists who are reasonable in their demands and understanding of technology and changing consumption habits (blah blah zeitgeist) will charge a more realistic rate. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 17:15:26 GMT -6
John, I'm not trying to be an ass. But your comment annoyed me. Have you never heard of the Grateful Dead or Fish or any jazz musicians? Thousands of artists who produced records with no help from hired songwriters. Your post seemed like you weren't acknowledging any of them or the hundreds of musicians who cut their own albums and release their own stuff (Wiz) without hiring a full-time writer to come up with the melodies/lyrics And those people AREN'T songwriters? Aren't they getting screwed just like "professional" songwritrers? Right now with sales producing essentially ZERO income the only possibility of payment for those "thousands" of artists is the royalties from their songs. Theyu sure as hell aren't going to make anything to speak of releasing their own stuff. And unless they somehow manage to get as big as The Dead or Phish they aren't going to make sh*t playing live, either - they'll be lucky to break even - if they're popular. And FWIW, The Dead did indeedd have a full time lyricist, Mr. Robert Hunter. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 17:20:30 GMT -6
Total bullshytte! most acts LOSE money touring. These people do not begin to comprehend the logistics and economics of mounting even a modest tour. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 17:28:06 GMT -6
And yes, the problem is the government is protecting the large corporations because of an anti-trust law established in the 1940s. They claimed that ASCAP was acting as a monopoly and charging rates that buyers couldn't afford. Now, all of the PROs are still bound by that anti-trust ruling and THAT is why we can't negotiate with Pandora, Spotify, Youtube, Amazon, Google, etc. The creator/songwriter is now absolutely exploited by big industry. The government protects the very people that are exploiting the American worker. Absolutely. But it's not a conservative/liberal question anymore, because there really isn't a hell of a lot of difference between "conservative" and "liberal" politicians anymore except empty rhetoric, posturing, and window dressing. We're living in an oligarchy controlled by Big Tech and their siblings in Big Advertising (with a fair bit of kibbitzing from Big Oil and maybe a couple of other rump "Big" industries...). They still "play the game" because it's a convenient way to distract people and keep them under control. The real issues these days are big business vs the people market. It's really kinda funny in a bizarre way..... here we have an intelligent, thoughtful person who, from what it looks like to me identifies fairly strongly as a "conservative" complaining about "exploiting the American worker" - that's COMMIE TALK! Just goes to show - as my daddy used to say "It's all a question of whose ox is being gored!" Ok. I'm trying to decipher the large majority of your responses, but let me start with this. It is not "communist" to expect a fair wage in exchange for a service or good. It is not "communist" to call out someone for exploiting and raping the free market. It's actually the opposite. Maybe I'm not understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 17:33:34 GMT -6
What would be a fair price? Let's just say per million streams. What should a song generate via streaming? I believe that 10-20 on demand streams are equal to one sale. Maybe 100-150 "non-demand" streams. I also believe that the on-demand streaming model is economically non-viable without being able to legally steal content because their audience would not pay what they'd need to charge. I also believe that the so-called "radio model" is equally unfair because they allow "narrowcasting". A true radio model would be ad supported and would be open to local advertising, not just big national campaigns buying huge blocks at a heavy discount. It would also be responsive to local popularity based on polling (request lines) and local popularity in small venues. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 17:41:31 GMT -6
What would be a fair price? Let's just say per million streams. What should a song generate via streaming? I believe that 10-20 on demand streams are equal to one sale. Maybe 100-150 "non-demand" streams. I also believe that the on-demand streaming model is economically non-viable without being able to legally steal content because their audience would not pay what they'd need to charge. I also believe that the so-called "radio model" is equally unfair because they allow "narrowcasting". A true radio model would be ad supported and would be open to local advertising, not just big national campaigns buying huge blocks at a heavy discount. It would also be responsive to local popularity based on polling (request lines) and local popularity in small venues. I believe all that counts for is chart status. You don't get paid double the stream and the sale. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 18:06:15 GMT -6
Absolutely. But it's not a conservative/liberal question anymore, because there really isn't a hell of a lot of difference between "conservative" and "liberal" politicians anymore except empty rhetoric, posturing, and window dressing. We're living in an oligarchy controlled by Big Tech and their siblings in Big Advertising (with a fair bit of kibbitzing from Big Oil and maybe a couple of other rump "Big" industries...). They still "play the game" because it's a convenient way to distract people and keep them under control. The real issues these days are big business vs the people market. It's really kinda funny in a bizarre way..... here we have an intelligent, thoughtful person who, from what it looks like to me identifies fairly strongly as a "conservative" complaining about "exploiting the American worker" - that's COMMIE TALK! Just goes to show - as my daddy used to say "It's all a question of whose ox is being gored!" Ok. I'm trying to decipher the large majority of your responses, but let me start with this. It is not "communist" to expect a fair wage in exchange for a service or good. It is not "communist" to call out someone for exploiting and raping the free market. It's actually the opposite. Maybe I'm not understanding. Well, it depends on whose definitions you're using. If you're using the literal textbook definition of Marxist communism you're correct. If you're using the word "Commie" as it's commonly bandied about by modern neo-conservatives it's a totally different story because according to what passes for "conservatism" in the halls of power these days, anything that favors the rights of actual working people who take in less than, oh, let's say a million dollars (with inflation) a year constitutes "communism" or "socialism" (they don't apper to differentiate). If you're talking about Russian or Chinese style "communism" that's not really communism at all, it's a form of fascism. What you're not getting is that from their point of view it's US who want to rape their "free market" because they define corporations as "super citizens" and when they talk about "free market" they mean freedom for those corporations to do whatever benefits them, without "communist" regulation. "Communist" these days meaning anything that gets in their way and "free market" meaning that those with enough money can get away with anything they want because they're "free" to do so. If you study the history of US labor you'll find that historically the labor movement has been associated with socialists and communists. Me, I'm opposed to doctrinaire rhetoric of all stripes and demagogues of all ideologies. I believe in balance. I believe in honesty. And, although I keep trying I believe you can't win because those with real morals and scruples are always at a disadvantage to those who don't have any. I also believe that Barry Goldwater is rolling violently in his grave these days. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 18:10:38 GMT -6
I believe that 10-20 on demand streams are equal to one sale. Maybe 100-150 "non-demand" streams. I also believe that the on-demand streaming model is economically non-viable without being able to legally steal content because their audience would not pay what they'd need to charge. I also believe that the so-called "radio model" is equally unfair because they allow "narrowcasting". A true radio model would be ad supported and would be open to local advertising, not just big national campaigns buying huge blocks at a heavy discount. It would also be responsive to local popularity based on polling (request lines) and local popularity in small venues. I believe all that counts for is chart status. You don't get paid double the stream and the sale. But how is chart status computed and how do you figure royalties off that. What's #1 at one time may be many times more popular that what was #1 some other time - or vice-versa. How do you figure that it? |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 18:38:13 GMT -6
Excuse me. Not chart status...counts for sale status.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 18:57:50 GMT -6
Not enough this is our music we own and create unfortunately the " ownership has been blurred " ... if you can buy a single for 1.29 off iTunes ( donattist still get 50-70% of the 1.29? ) then Streaming should be half of that like 50cents per stream maybe 25 cents split it 3 ways the artist the company the investor everybody eats equally Not even remotely realistic. Every streaming media business would cease to exist overnight. And that would be a BAD thing? I don't think so, if it was coupled with adequate enforcemernt of piracy laws. Let 'em die! I don't find any ecological reason to protect cockroaches. That's utter nonsense. The price of hardcopy is paid ONCE, at the intial purchase. That price covers all required royalties unless you're going to broadcast (distribute) it to other people. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 19:11:18 GMT -6
Excuse me. Not chart status...counts for sale status. But what THEY claim is "counts for sale status" is vastly, absurdly undervalued. The majority of people whop bought records (of all types) back in the day would listen to most a relatively few times and shelve them, to be played maybe a few timers a year, if that. Nonetheless, full royaties were paid. Sure, favorite records got played a lot more, but an awful lot were not. Recods purchased on cassette for automotive play got re-purchased a LOT more, because most lasted relatively few plays before being devourged by the (generally poorly calibrated and maintained) playback hardware, used in a high-vibration environment. |
|
