|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,104
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,104 |
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  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: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,646
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
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 TunesPsalm 57:7 My heart, O God, is steadfast, my heart is steadfast; I will sing and make music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,492
Expert
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,104
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,104 |
<...>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 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
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,326
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,326 |
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.comAdd 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,569
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,569 |
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
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 123 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,074
Veteran
|
|
OP
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,104
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,104 |
Bob "Notes" Norton 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: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
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. http://www.amazon.com/Me-Mob-Music-Helluva-Shondells/dp/1439172889
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,074
Veteran
|
|
OP
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
Expert
|
|
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  --=--You're only paranoid if you're wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
Expert
|
|
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 --=--You're only paranoid if you're wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,326
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,326 |
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.comAdd 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,326
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,326 |
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.comAdd 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Video: Next-Level AI Music Editing with ACE Studio and Band-in-a-Box®
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 German for Windows is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 für Windows Deutsch ist verfügbar!
Wir waren fleißig und haben über 50 neue Funktionen und eine erstaunliche Sammlung neuer Inhalte hinzugefügt, darunter 222 RealTracks, neue RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, abspielbare RealTracks Set 3, abspielbare RealDrums Set 2, zwei neue Sets von "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK 6, Xtra Styles PAK 17 und mehr!
Paket | Was ist Neu
Update Your PowerTracks Pro Audio 2024 Today!
The Newest RealBand 2024 Update is Here!
The newest RealBand 2024 Build 5 update is now available!
Download and install this to your RealBand 2024 for updated print options, streamlined loading and saving of .SGU & MGU (BB) files, and to add a number of program adjustments that address user-reported bugs and concerns.
This free update is available to all RealBand 2024 users. To learn more about this update and download it, head to www.pgmusic.com/support.realband.htm#20245
The Band-in-a-Box® Flash Drive Backup Option
Today (April 5) is National Flash Drive Day!
Did you know... not only can you download your Band-in-a-Box® Pro, MegaPAK, or PlusPAK purchase - you can also choose to add a flash drive backup copy with the installation files for only $15? It even comes with a Band-in-a-Box® keychain!
For the larger Band-in-a-Box® packages (UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition), the hard drive backup copy is available for only $25. This will include a preinstalled and ready to use program, along with your installation files.
Backup copies are offered during the checkout process on our website.
Already purchased your e-delivery version, and now you wish you had a backup copy? It's not too late! If your purchase was for the current version of Band-in-a-Box®, you can still reach out to our team directly to place your backup copy order!
Note: the Band-in-a-Box® keychain is only included with flash drive backup copies, and cannot be purchased separately.
Handy flash drive tip: Always try plugging in a USB device the wrong way first? If your flash drive (or other USB plug) doesn't have a symbol to indicate which way is up, look for the side with a seam on the metal connector (it only has a line across one side) - that's the side that either faces down or to the left, depending on your port placement.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows® Today!
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows for free with build 1111!
With this update, there's more control when saving images from the Print Preview window, we've added defaults to the MultiPicker for sorting and font size, updated printing options, updated RealTracks and other content, and addressed user-reported issues with the StylePicker, MIDI Soloists, key signature changes, and more!
Learn more about this free update for Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows at www.pgmusic.com/support_windowsupdates.htm#1111
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 Review: 4.75 out of 5 Stars!
If you're looking for a in-depth review of the newest Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows version, you'll definitely find it with Sound-Guy's latest review, Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows Review: Incredible new capabilities to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs.
A few excerpts:
"The Tracks view is possibly the single most powerful addition in 2024 and opens up a new way to edit and generate accompaniments. Combined with the new MultiPicker Library Window, it makes BIAB nearly perfect as an 'intelligent' composer/arranger program."
"MIDI SuperTracks partial generation showing six variations – each time the section is generated it can be instantly auditioned, re-generated or backed out to a previous generation – and you can do this with any track type. This is MAJOR! This takes musical experimentation and honing an arrangement to a new level, and faster than ever."
"Band in a Box continues to be an expansive musical tool-set for both novice and experienced musicians to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs, as well as an extensive educational resource. It is huge, with hundreds of functions, more than any one person is likely to ever use. Yet, so is any DAW that I have used. BIAB can do some things that no DAW does, and this year BIAB has more DAW-like functions than ever."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums66
Topics81,642
Posts735,384
Members38,525
| |
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean