Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread
Print Thread
Go To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Pat Marr #253221 06/09/14 07:05 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,079
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,079
90db you mentioned the big dogs get all the money and the artist gets the shaft.

It has always been this way, musicians, artists, writers, and so on do it because our passion drives us to do it -- and more often than not we have poor business skills. The publishers and the rest of the industry have excellent business skills and they take advantage of that balance to overpower the artist.

When Motown was courting us to become their first white major artist, our management and lawyers were trying to get paid. They started at 4 cents per record, then little by little the money per record wend down and down until the final amount wouldn't cover what Motown would have billed us for recording, production and promotion costs even if we sold a million copies. And that was in the days before T shirt and other merchandising add-ons.

Negotiations broke off and Berry Gordy's second choice, The Sunliners made a deal with them - I have no idea of the terms they settled with. The Sunliners changed their name to Rare Earth and cut a few for Motown. I hope they made out OK.

Authors have been exploited by the publishing companies for longer than there have been record companies. Like top 40 artists, the people who write hit book after hit book can make a great deal with the publishers, but the 'one hit wonders' of the literary world can't quit their day jobs.

I definitely feel that the songwriter deserves to get paid for his/her composition. But I think 75 years after he/she dies is extremely excessive.

I make my money performing music. I've never had a recording contract, although I did come close once. The songs I play are the tools I use to make a living, and I assume most of the venues I play in have an ASCAP license. If not I'm sure the ASCAP or BMI rep will eventually visit them.

I played that gig in the Embassy suites on Saturday. It was 2 hours away each direction. We set up before cocktail hour and didn't play until dinner. So I left the house at 2 PM after loading the gear in the van and didn't get home until 2:30 AM and then had to get the gear of of the van. There's no way I'm going to make an mp3 and send a report in.

Yesterday we did a pool party. It was close to home, but still, setting up in a tent, sweating and getting beat by the sun and the wind, worrying about the thunderstorms to the west, and tearing down after dark to the glow of golf cart headlights left us very tired. No way I'm going to make an mp3 and file the report.

A performing musician has a lot to do. In my duo: set up the gear (2 synths, 2 guitars, 3 computers, flute, sax, sound modules, PA system and dozens of cables) ... troubleshoot any problems ... do a sound check ... start playing and watching the reaction of the audience to get a good idea as to what song to call next ... and then tear down. The performing itself is both physically and mentally demanding and the setup/teardown is time consuming and physical. Reporting our playlist sounds like a great way to get the proper artists paid the proper amount of money - but I'm sorry, it's too much to ask.

There has to be a better way.

As mentioned, the industry people have the business skills, and the money to influence the lawmakers. Thus the copyright laws are definitely weighted to the advantage of the industry people and not for the artists who get crumbs off the table at best. That's why they need to be revised so that they are fair to all. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Insights and incites by Notes


Bob "Notes" Norton smile Norton Music
https://www.nortonmusic.com

100% MIDI Super-Styles recorded by live, pro, studio musicians for a live groove
& Fake Disks for MIDI and/or RealTracks
Pat Marr #253240 06/09/14 09:27 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
"A performing musician has a lot to do. In my duo: set up the gear (2 synths, 2 guitars, 3 computers, flute, sax, sound modules, PA system and dozens of cables) ... troubleshoot any problems ... do a sound check ... start playing and watching the reaction of the audience to get a good idea as to what song to call next ... and then tear down. The performing itself is both physically and mentally demanding and the setup/teardown is time consuming and physical."




I hear ya. We just got back from setting up/sound checking for our gig tonight. 1 hour each way, then 2 hours setting up a trailer full of gear. Then tonight we drive back down to the club, play from 7-10, tear down, pack up and drive home. It's grueling, for sure. Next week we're playing for 4 hours outside in 92 degree heat.

However, for a little perspective:

My last “straight” job was at an auto plant. 10 hour days, six days a week. Very strenuous, hard work.

I'll take playing music over that any day. grin

Pat Marr #253253 06/09/14 12:56 PM
Off-Topic
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,646
P
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
P
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,646
That was a very verbose defense of what is basically theft.

I believe 90 db if you re-read my original post on the subject I clearly said it was my (opinion) that the copyright laws concerning paying to just sing a song are not right, I stand by that, you see it the other way and that's fine. I was not in any way saying folks should break the law as In both post I made it clear that the law is you pay; and that the law should be followed. I did however say the law should be changed; as it is not written in stone like the one about stealing you quoted from the Holy Book. It would not be the first time men had to change a law. Check out sometime all of the amendments that even one law can have. It will probably never change though due to greed.

You spoke of performing at a place with 7 day a week music and it is booming, sure there are many that are, many are rolling in the dough but look in an old phone book some time and see how many of those kinds of places who offered live music and have went under. I am not blaming it all on paying for music, that would be foolish to think; employee theft is a bigger problem to a restaurant than to the music business. but how many could have been saved without the unnecessary expense and the paperwork required to keep track. And how many have been shut down because they could not pay their dues. How many times do you hear of one of the companies collecting royalties and the artist and writer never receives any money? So where is the money really going? It is all just a bunch of unnecessary red tape; once again in my opinion. It all comes from greed, folks wanting theirs no matter who gets hurt in the process. How many have stopped using live bands because of the expense and the headache required and now offer no music at all (that is the real crime.) Thanks for sharing your views!

Last edited by PgFantastic; 06/09/14 12:57 PM.

My Tunes

Psalm 57:7 My heart, O God, is steadfast, my heart is steadfast; I will sing and make music.
PgFantastic #253258 06/09/14 01:38 PM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Originally Posted By: PgFantastic
That was a very verbose defense of what is basically theft.

I believe 90 db if you re-read my original post on the subject I clearly said it was my (opinion) that the copyright laws concerning paying to just sing a song are not right, I stand by that, you see it the other way and that's fine. I was not in any way saying folks should break the law as In both post I made it clear that the law is you pay; and that the law should be followed. I did however say the law should be changed; as it is not written in stone like the one about stealing you quoted from the Holy Book. It would not be the first time men had to change a law. Check out sometime all of the amendments that even one law can have. It will probably never change though due to greed.

You spoke of performing at a place with 7 day a week music and it is booming, sure there are many that are, many are rolling in the dough but look in an old phone book some time and see how many of those kinds of places who offered live music and have went under. I am not blaming it all on paying for music, that would be foolish to think; employee theft is a bigger problem to a restaurant than to the music business. but how many could have been saved without the unnecessary expense and the paperwork required to keep track. And how many have been shut down because they could not pay their dues. How many times do you hear of one of the companies collecting royalties and the artist and writer never receives any money? So where is the money really going? It is all just a bunch of unnecessary red tape; once again in my opinion. It all comes from greed, folks wanting theirs no matter who gets hurt in the process. How many have stopped using live bands because of the expense and the headache required and now offer no music at all (that is the real crime.) Thanks for sharing your views!







It's fascinating how so many people can rationalize theft with platitudes about “greed”. Those greedy songwriters just want their filthy lucre, and don't care about the poor bar owner who operates his bar out of his love for mankind. I suggest you do some research on the hospitality business. The ROI is incredible – if the operator knows what he's doing. Music licensing is just another cost of doing business, and the expense is rolled into the rest of the costs and recouped by the bar's margin.


I did quote the Bible, because I believe it is germane to this conversation. Regardless of how you feel about a law (even one that doesn't affect you in the least), it is the law, and using protected music without paying for it is theft. Stealing. (as in “Thou Shalt Not...”)

Justifying the theft by citing nebulous misinformation does not change the facts. Don't like the law? Work to get it changed; it's a free country.

90 dB #253303 06/10/14 12:33 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,492
Expert
Offline
Expert
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,492
Theft? Most people will not (want to) understand that. That is such a harsh word. Usually when theft occurs somebody has less than before. When I "steal" by means of performing a song, nobody has less than before. It is such an altruistic thing because many people have more, it is in the best interest of the public. (Ain't I nice?) That is what many seem to understand.

Actually it is in the same category as fare evasion, fiscal evasion -- it is fraudulent evasion, an illegal behaviour subject to prosecution.

Copyright for somebody's lifespan plus 75 years? Well, we could discuss that. Preparing for a seminar about copyright I have read somewhere -- sorry, don't recall where so I can't give a source -- that the timeframe for copyright was to cover the next two generations of the authors. (Similar to handing down a business to your children.) What was not intended is that authors lease/sell/give away their rights to a company. (I also a long time ago read somwhere that, in the U.S., transfering a copyright was legal only for some 20 years. After that the rights were transfered back to the original owner.)


Others have written about the process. So if you perform in public, create a play list of the songs you played including as much information as possible about the song and send it to the respective PRO. Then the owner of the copyright has a chance to get some money. You need to compile the data only once and then reuse them. Most of the performers will not play a hundred songs today and a different hundred tomorrow and on the next day only songs that have not been played the two days before.


Side note: I try to use the PRO work number, but sometimes this number is hard to find -- or would you have thought that Killin' Time (and all the other songs of the album with the same name) by Clint Black had been registered with the German GEMA instead of BMI where all his others songs are? A lot of songs are meanwhile given an ISWC number (http://www.iswc.org/).



Last edited by GHinCH; 06/10/14 12:35 AM.

Desktop; i7-2600k, 8 GB mem., Win 10 Pro, BIAB 2017; RB 2017 - latest build
Laptop: i5-2410M, 4 GB mem, Win 10 Pro, BIAB 2017; RB 2017 - latest build
GHinCH #253326 06/10/14 06:04 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,079
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,079
Originally Posted By: GHinCH
<...>Most of the performers will not play a hundred songs today and a different hundred tomorrow and on the next day only songs that have not been played the two days before.<...>

I guess I'm not like most then.

We have over 500 songs in our book, and I call the songs on the fly according to what I think is best for the particular audience near the end of each previous songs.

Example, Saturday we did a High School 50'th reunion - so the room was filled with baby boomers and we played mostly that kind of music with a few newer ones sprinkled in.

Sunday we did an outdoor party for a gated community consisting of younger to middle aged professionals, many with small children. Perhaps a dozen songs were played that we did on Saturday.

Today we play at a marina where we will play a lot of Caribbean and Tropical songs mixed with a lot of listening songs, again a very different mix of songs. But that will depend on who shows up, what they are into, and what they are responding to today.

When I was in the AFofM, the union man came to check on us and collect the work dues. As far as I'm concerned, the PRO should send a rep down to do the list. I have enough on my mind, what song to play next, I also sing, play sax, guitar, flute and wind synth so often I have cue the next backing track, undo the strap so I can switch instruments quickly as I go from song to song without a beat in between.

Reading the audience, pacing the audience, and playing music to the best of my ability is my job. It requires a flip-flop between the "zone" state of making music and the active mental state of the rest of the job. It's very intensive, when the gig is over, I'm beat (mentally and physically) but it's a very good, satisfying kind of tired.

And why should two generations after the songwriter dies receive royalties on his/her creation? Do the children of John Lennon, Carole King, Doc Pomus, Barry Mann, and other famous songwriters really need the money? They've already made millions of dollars on their creations (and deserved every penny) and unless they blew the money, their descendants are set for life. And if the songwriter wasn't successful (like myself) the amount of royalties for that 75 years wouldn't amount to anything worthwhile.

Kurt Weill died in 1950, Mack The Knife (Die Moritat von Mackie Messer) was written in 1928 and you won't be able to play it in public without paying whoever owns the copyright now until 2025 making the copyright span almost a hundred years.

'nuff said about that subject.

We play that one about once every month or two - close to the Bobby Darin arrangement.

The copyright laws were written to protect the songwriter from having his/her work stolen by someone else who could then make a fortune with the song and leave the creator penniless. That's a good thing. But the copyright laws have far exceeded that function and have become a cash cow for a lot of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the song. The famous "Happy Birthday" example - WB makes 2 million a year - how much did the sisters who wrote those two words on a PD song make? Not much.

Insights and incites by Notes


Bob "Notes" Norton smile Norton Music
https://www.nortonmusic.com

100% MIDI Super-Styles recorded by live, pro, studio musicians for a live groove
& Fake Disks for MIDI and/or RealTracks
Off-Topic
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,492
Expert
Offline
Expert
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,492
"But the copyright laws have far exceeded that function and have become a cash cow for a lot of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the song."

I second that.

(That is the reason why I wrote in a previous post that PROs are just an investment company for heirs and publishers.)


Desktop; i7-2600k, 8 GB mem., Win 10 Pro, BIAB 2017; RB 2017 - latest build
Laptop: i5-2410M, 4 GB mem, Win 10 Pro, BIAB 2017; RB 2017 - latest build
Pat Marr #253401 06/11/14 07:32 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,301
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,301
Copyright laws spring from the 4th amendment to the constitution. They expand on what was said in the 4th amendment and deal with the specifics.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To be secure in our PAPERS was a very important issue to the founders. I see this when I read about the founding fathers. Revere, Adams, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, etc... The founders were men who wrote a lot of letters and books. As songwriters, we also write and create intellectual property.

The founders are stating in this 4th amendment that our papers are worthy of protection. And with intellectual property, we are accorded the same rights to not have it taken forceably or stolen from us by others or the government. Just as we can purchase a piece of property (real estate) and develop it, and then pass it down to our children and to their children, our intellectual property, in the eyes of the founders should have the same protections and property rights as our houses and lands.

As one who owns many copyrighted songs, currently under contract in libraries and with publishers, I stand on the side of supporting the rights of copyright owners for the full term codified in our current laws. That way, should a song I write become a classic, my heirs will benefit long after my passing by the royalties that the use of the song would continue to produce. Should congress decide to amend that term length, I would hope that they would look at it from the copyright writer/owner's point of view and proceed carefully to maintain those rights.

Last edited by Guitarhacker; 06/11/14 07:36 AM.

You can find my music at:
www.herbhartley.com
Add nothing that adds nothing to the music.
You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.

The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Pat Marr #253405 06/11/14 09:18 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,558
J
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
J
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,558
copyright and patent laws are a very interesting aspect of a society!

imagine how you would feel if there was a law that stipulated that you or your heirs would automatically lose your physical property X number of years after it was first created or acquired by you!

yet we do exactly that with music and other creative endeavors, inventions, etc. and we do that because we believe that an individual is entitled to benefit exclusively from their creations but only for a time and then society at large should benefit from them.

this is exactly the reason we have cheap generic drugs that are just as good as the brand names. it is why we have ziplock-style package sealers in lots of packaged foods. it is why we can buy cheap, off-brand transparent tape and velcro-style fasteners. and thousands of other products.

I think you can make a great case for copyright and patent laws transferring rights back to the public at large but I guess you could make a good case for allowing someone who creates something to keep it indefinitely too!

But overall, I guess I am pretty pleased with the balance we have in the US regarding copyright and patent.

Last edited by JohnJohnJohn; 06/11/14 09:53 AM.
Off-Topic
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 123
B
Apprentice
Offline
Apprentice
B
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 123
Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
copyright and patent laws are a very interesting aspect of a society!

imagine how you would feel if there was a law that stipulated that you or your heirs would automatically lose your physical property X number of years after it was first created or acquired by you!

yet we do exactly that with music and other creative endeavors, inventions, etc. and we do that because we believe that an individual is entitled to benefit exclusively from their creations but only for a time and then society at large should benefit from them.


100% right. Using people's work without aquiring the rights is THEFT!!!! that is it, no discussion

Pat Marr #253466 06/11/14 11:38 PM
Off-Topic
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,074
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,074
there are two different discussions going on here.

I don't think anyone here is against songwriters benefitting from copyright protection and future income.

But there are plenty of people here who think the current copyright law does a better job of serving the financial needs of everybody BUT the songwriter

and therein lies the rub

Pat Marr #253474 06/12/14 04:43 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,079
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,079
Exactly! (What Pat said)


Bob "Notes" Norton smile Norton Music
https://www.nortonmusic.com

100% MIDI Super-Styles recorded by live, pro, studio musicians for a live groove
& Fake Disks for MIDI and/or RealTracks
Pat Marr #253485 06/12/14 06:41 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Originally Posted By: Pat Marr
there are two different discussions going on here.

I don't think anyone here is against songwriters benefitting from copyright protection and future income.

But there are plenty of people here who think the current copyright law does a better job of serving the financial needs of everybody BUT the songwriter

and therein lies the rub




Pat,

Copyright law is not aimed at 'serving' the songwriter. It protects the rights of the copyright owner, and in may cases, that is not the actual songwriter. It is quite common for publishers to receive a portion (or in some cases, all) of the proceeds from a song recording or performance.

The Lennon/McCartney catalog is an example. Sony/ATV Music Publishing had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the songs in the catalog, yet they own the rights to them.

'Copyright law' or the PRO's are not the real villains in the music business. It is the publishers and record companies who have really ripped off songwriters. Just ask John Fogerty, Tom Waits or Tommy James. grin


http://www.amazon.com/Me-Mob-Music-Helluva-Shondells/dp/1439172889

Pat Marr #253546 06/12/14 10:25 PM
Off-Topic
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,074
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,074
exactly Bob.

The astonishing thing to me is that once BMI and ASCAP get involved, a songwriter almost never ends up owning the rights to his own songs.

When the same phenomenon repeats virtually 100% of the time, it isn't an accident. Its the inevitable conclusion to a messed up system that SYSTEMatically separates the creators from their creations.

It may be backed up by laws, but that's still messed up.

Pat Marr #253551 06/13/14 12:27 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
Expert
Offline
Expert
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
I would like to see thing change such that:
a) rights cannot be assigned to anyone other than the creator of a work (except as in c) below).

b) the current practice of rights assignment be replaced with a time limited, non exclusive licence (max 25 years) and/or a time limited exclusive licence (max 5 years) - relicencing permitted, but exclusive licences cannot be relicenced to any entity or associated entity that has already had an exclusive licence.

c) copyright to expire 25 years after the creators demise PROVIDED there are no questionable circumstances surrounding their death. If there are questionable circumstances then the work is NEVER placed in the public domain and the rights be assigned to a charity of the creators preference, or where this is unknown, a charity chosen by lottery. Should said charity cease to be a charity or it become defunct then a new charity be selected by lottery.

d) copyright resides in either an individual or a group of individuals - compann's or other dorporate type entities CANNOT hold Intellectual Property of any kind. Rationale is that people create, not corporations or other "legal entities".

Lotsa people would probably hate these things, but they'd go a long way to overcome the kind of exploitation that stops the creators from getting a fair return on their work while the exploiters get obscenely rich. The creators should be the ones getting obscenely rich!


--=-- My credo: If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing - just ask my missus, she'll tell ya laugh --=--
You're only paranoid if you're wrong!
Lawrie #253576 06/13/14 04:59 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Originally Posted By: Lawrie
I would like to see thing change such that:
a) rights cannot be assigned to anyone other than the creator of a work (except as in c) below).

b) the current practice of rights assignment be replaced with a time limited, non exclusive licence (max 25 years) and/or a time limited exclusive licence (max 5 years) - relicencing permitted, but exclusive licences cannot be relicenced to any entity or associated entity that has already had an exclusive licence.

c) copyright to expire 25 years after the creators demise PROVIDED there are no questionable circumstances surrounding their death. If there are questionable circumstances then the work is NEVER placed in the public domain and the rights be assigned to a charity of the creators preference, or where this is unknown, a charity chosen by lottery. Should said charity cease to be a charity or it become defunct then a new charity be selected by lottery.

d) copyright resides in either an individual or a group of individuals - compann's or other dorporate type entities CANNOT hold Intellectual Property of any kind. Rationale is that people create, not corporations or other "legal entities".

Lotsa people would probably hate these things, but they'd go a long way to overcome the kind of exploitation that stops the creators from getting a fair return on their work while the exploiters get obscenely rich. The creators should be the ones getting obscenely rich!






Lawrie,

Consider this scenario:

I buy some land, clear it, dig a well and build a house with my own hands. I have a deed to the land that the house sits on. If I decide I want to emigrate to beautiful NSW, do I have the right to sell the house and land? I “created” the house. Can I rent the house? Only for 5 years? If I get eaten by a great white off the Great Barrier Reef, does my deed expire in 25 years, and the house go to a “charity” chosen by lottery? Can I sell the house and land to a bank? After all, they didn't create the house. I did.

When I write a song and copyright it, I own it. With that ownership comes the right to sell, assign or designate all or part of the copyright to any party I choose. Who better to be the arbiter of my rights under US copyright law?



Regards,

Bob

90 dB #253596 06/13/14 06:09 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
Expert
Offline
Expert
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
That's what the licencing is for - consider that my way you CANNOT have your property stolen by unscrupulous lawyers/corporations.

Is it better to simply sell your property in California, or rent it out and get additional income from it?

Intellectual property is a whole different kettle of fish to real estate and not really comparable. IMHO


--=-- My credo: If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing - just ask my missus, she'll tell ya laugh --=--
You're only paranoid if you're wrong!
Pat Marr #253597 06/13/14 06:30 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
prop·er·ty noun \ˈprä-pər-tē\

: something that is owned by a person, business, etc.

: a piece of land often with buildings on it that is owned by a person, business, etc.

: a special quality or characteristic of something




http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

Pat Marr #253605 06/13/14 07:18 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,301
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,301
Originally Posted By: Pat Marr
exactly Bob.

The astonishing thing to me is that once BMI and ASCAP get involved, a songwriter almost never ends up owning the rights to his own songs.

When the same phenomenon repeats virtually 100% of the time, it isn't an accident. Its the inevitable conclusion to a messed up system that Systematically separates the creators from their creations.

It may be backed up by laws, but that's still messed up.




Well, that's kinda true... but... not exactly the whole truth.

Let me explain.

As a song writer, you own 100% of the writer and publisher share of the song. (under US copyright laws) That is a total of 200% with each part being 100%.

Unless you are SELF PUBLISHING the song, you are probably asking a publisher to help you plug that song to artists and opportunities. You sign a contract releasing your rights of controlling ownership to that publisher at a pre-determined split of the writer's share and the publisher's share. In most cases, that is a 50/50 split with the writer retaining 100% of the writer's share and the publisher retaining 100% of the publishers share. The publisher will generally, in that agreement secure 100% controlling ownership of the song at that time, in accordance with the contract terms. I said "generally" because in an exclusive deal you do relinquish all the ownership rights, but in a non-exclusive deal, you actually retain some (or all) of the ownership rights. That's why you need to understand what you are signing.

To this point neither ASCAP nor BMI is involved.

The new owner.... the publisher will now do 2 things and hopefully a third.
1. they will register a copyright as the owner of the song in their name referencing any existing copyright the writer may ahve obtained earlier.
2. they will now, register the song with the PRO you and they are associated with. It is possible for a writer to register the song earlier as well. However, that registration will need to be changed to indicate the publisher's ownership of the publisher's share since all registrations with a PRO must equal 200%. Unpublished songs automatically have both writer & publisher share assigned to the writer if no publisher is listed when a writer registers the song.
3. hopefully, the publisher will also get the song "published" and get you a cut.

When ASCAP, BMI, or any other PRO is brought in, their job is to collect the performance royalties and pay the 2 parties.

So... in most cases, by the time ASCAP or BMI get involved, the song ownership has already changed hands and it's on no way related to or caused by association of the song with the PRO.

I've said this before, but I will reiterate it here again. I don't copyright my songs, nor do I register them with my PRO. I'm not worried about someone stealing the music. I trust the publishers and libraries I work with to be honest. (if I don't trust them, why would I work with them?) The publishers, when they sign my songs handle the paperwork and expense of the copyright and the BMI registration. Some publishers have asked me to register the song with BMI, but not many. I've had one major film/tv library president ask me to let them handle all that paperwork.

I sent 40+ songs and cues to a major TV library for a big A&E hit show last December... The president of the library registered all of them with my PRO. I looked into my BMI account and all the cues and songs were in there with the library at 100% pub share, and me 100% writer's share. That's how it works.

Last edited by Guitarhacker; 06/13/14 07:22 AM.

You can find my music at:
www.herbhartley.com
Add nothing that adds nothing to the music.
You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.

The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Pat Marr #253607 06/13/14 07:29 AM
Off-Topic
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,301
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,301
Since we are on the topic here of how copyright laws need to be changed.....


How many of you are aware that BMI is actually involved in this fight right now, holding meetings and in discussions with congress to get new laws that reflect the current state of the art.

Read the story here: BMI & COPYRIGHT LAWS

Of course, since there are 2 sides to this ongoing discussion, I'm sure some will agree with the story and others won't. The point being that there are folks working to change the laws to reflect the current state of things in 2014 as opposed to the existing laws written in the 60's before internet and streaming.


You can find my music at:
www.herbhartley.com
Add nothing that adds nothing to the music.
You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.

The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Go To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
ChatPG

Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.

ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.

PG Music News
Convenient Ways to Listen to Band-in-a-Box® Songs Created by Program Users!

The User Showcase Forum is an excellent place to share your Band-in-a-Box® songs and listen to songs other program users are creating!

There are other places you can listen to these songs too! Visit our User Showcase page to sort by genre, artist (forum name), song title, and date - each listing will direct you to the forum post for that song.

If you'd rather listen to these songs in one place, head to our Band-in-a-Box® Radio, where you'll have the option to select the genre playlist for your listening pleasure. This page has SoundCloud built in, so it won't redirect you. We've also added the link to the Artists SoundCloud page here, and a link to their forum post.

We hope you find some inspiration from this amazing collection of User Showcase Songs!

Congratulations to the 2023 User Showcase Award Winners!

We've just announced the 2023 User Showcase Award Winners!

There are 45 winners, each receiving a Band-in-a-Box 2024 UltraPAK! Read the official announcement to see if you've won.

Our User Showcase Forum receives more than 50 posts per day, with people sharing their Band-in-a-Box songs and providing feedback for other songs posted.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed!

Video: Volume Automation in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows®

We've created a video to help you learn more about the Volume Automation options in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows.

Band-in-a-Box® 2024: Volume Automation

www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbw2024full/chapter11.htm#volume-automation

Video: Audio Input Monitoring with Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows®

We've created this short video to explain Audio Input Monitoring within Band-in-a-Box® 2024, and included some tips & troubleshooting details too!

Band-in-a-Box® 2024: Audio Input Monitoring

3:17: Tips
5:10: Troubleshooting

www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbw2024full/chapter11.htm#audio-input-monitoring

Video: Enhanced Melodists in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows®!

We've enhanced the Melodists feature included in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows!

Access the Melodist feature by pressing F7 in the program to open the new MultiPicker Library and locate the [Melodist] tab.

You can now generate a melody on any track in the program - very handy! Plus, you select how much of the melody you want generated - specify a range, or apply it to the whole track.

See the Melodist in action with our video, Band-in-a-Box® 2024: The Melodist Window.

Learn even more about the enhancements to the Melodist feature in Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows at www.pgmusic.com/manuals/bbw2024upgrade/chapter3.htm#enhanced-melodist

Band-in-a-Box® 2024 DAW Plugin Version 6: New Features Specifically for Reaper®

New with the DAW Plugin Version 6.0, released with Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows: the Reaper® Panel!

This new panel offers built-in specific support for the Reaper® DAW API allowing direct transfer of Band-in-a-Box® files to/from Reaper® tracks!

When you run the Plugin from Reaper®, there is a panel to set the following options:
-BB Track(s) to send: This allows you to select the Plugin tracks that will be sent Reaper.
-Destination Reaper Track: This lets you select the destination Reaper track to receive media content from the Plugin.
-At Bar: You can select a bar in Reaper where the Plugin tracks should be placed.
-Start Below Selected Track: This allows you to place the Plugin tracks below the destination Reaper track.
-Overwrite Reaper Track: You can overwrite previous content on the destination Reaper track.
-Move to Project Folder: With this option, you can move the Plugin tracks to the Reaper project folder.
-Send Reaper Instructions Enable this option to send the Reaper Instructions instead of rendering audio tracks, which is faster.
-Render Audio & Instructions: Enable this option to generate audio files and the Reaper instructions.
-Send Tracks After Generating: This allows the Plugin to automatically send tracks to Reaper after generating.
-Send Audio for MIDI Track: Enable this option to send rendered audio for MIDI tracks.
-Send RealCharts with Audio: If this option is enabled, Enable this option to send RealCharts with audio.

Check out this video highlighting the new Reaper®-specific features: Band-in-a-Box® DAW Plugin Version 6: New Features Specifically for Reaper®

Band-in-a-Box® 2024 DAW Plugin Version 6: New Features Video

The new Band-in-a-Box VST DAW Plugin Verion 6 adds over 20 new features!

Watch the new features video to learn more: Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2024 - DAW Plugin Version 6 New Features

We also list these new features at www.pgmusic.com/bbwin.plugin.htm.

Forum Statistics
Forums66
Topics81,390
Posts732,455
Members38,441
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
Newest Members
Ernest J, ingridguerci94, Izzy, BenChaz, Csofi
38,440 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
MarioD 195
Al-David 124
DC Ron 114
dcuny 87
rsdean 83
Today's Birthdays
CeeDee, SethMould
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5