What do you all think about this music streaming complaint?

[Mrs Mungo]

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/

 

Here is the crux of the argument:

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!

 

This is just his portion of the songwriter's fee; it doesn't include his portion of the performer's fee and doesn't include the portion that goes to the production company, of which he is part owner.

 

Now, I understand that artists are upset that Pandora wants to cut their fees. More info on that here: http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/24/pink-floyd-says-no-thanks-to-pandoras-85-artist-pay-cut/

I don't think their fees should be cut at all. If Pandora needs more money, then they could advertise a bit more or work harder to win subscriptions. I don't mind paying for satellite radio (or at least I didn't mind while on CONUS, no satellite radio here in Hawaii) so that I get fewer ads, which is fairly comparable.

 

BUT, I think:

 

1) he is being a little shady here not revealing all of the various fees he is actually receiving. Plus, this is a 20 year old song, newer hit songs pay more, according to my understanding.

 

and 2) how many ways do I need to pay for a song? Many (if not most) of the artists that I listen to on Pandora fall into one of two categories-those I already like (and own/have owned their songs in multiple formats, some of the vinyl, tape, CD and now on itunes) and those that are new to me and my exposure often causes me to buy their songs on itunes. How many times do these artists want me to pay for their song in order to listen to it? At some point it is a little ridiculous.

 

So, I feel a little torn about the whole thing.

 

Thoughts?

[Jennifer]

Well, I think he should suck it up. I use Pandora/iHeart Radio as a jumping off point-when i hear a song I really like I go over to itunes to purchase and download. Having your song on Pandora and making a bit of money is still more profitable then making demo tapes and cd's to leave all over town like the old days.

 

I am grumpy today.

 

Jennifer

[Jennifer]

DId he disclose his itunes profits? And if he gets $1500/month from Terrestrial Radio from ONE really OLD song-that's still $18,000 a year.

[Kathryn]

I think he's being silly. He's getting plenty of money from different sources for his song, in multiple capacities. Most people have to actually keep working in order to continue to make large sums of money. I bought the album twenty years ago. Now I feel old.

[Kim in Appalachia]

This has been a big issue for years, not just in regards to Pandora, but also the radio. In the US artists are not paid for radio play. But artists in other countries are paid, in the rest of the world, for radio play (but not here), and because the US doesn't reimburse foreign artists, US artists are not reimbursed overseas. (I think that was the issue, read about it years ago when they were lobbying for a change in the US law).

 

Then along comes Pandora and other streaming services, and they still don't get much in the way of reinbursement.

 

I don't know how to feel about it either. I buy the music I want, but that is not how the younger generation is functioning. Artists should be paid for their work, but how much and how it all works out is hard to figure out. It's not like Pandora is making much (if any) of a profit, or any of the other streaming services. If they had to pay the artists more, than they would have to charge, there could not be free streaming.

 

Somehow the entire structure of how artists are paid needs to change in the US, but how, I don't know. The laws and regulations have not really kept up with technology. It's not fair to those who are trying to earn their living from their art. Only the top artists make a lot of money in the music industry, most do not make that much.

 

And yeah, I don't think I should have to purchase the same album over and over (buying the album once, maybe 20 years ago, maybe rebuying the mp3, and then paying for it on Pandora), but as I said, most people are not buying the music anymore.

 

It's an interesting problem.

[PeacefulChaos]

This has been a big issue for years, not just in regards to Pandora, but also the radio. In the US artists are not paid for radio play. But artists in other countries are paid, in the rest of the world, for radio play (but not here), and because the US doesn't reimburse foreign artists, US artists are not reimbursed overseas. (I think that was the issue, read about it years ago when they were lobbying for a change in the US law).

 

Then along comes Pandora and other streaming services, and they still don't get much in the way of reinbursement.

 

I don't know how to feel about it either. I buy the music I want, but that is not how the younger generation is functioning. Artists should be paid for their work, but how much and how it all works out is hard to figure out. It's not like Pandora is making much (if any) of a profit, or any of the other streaming services. If they had to pay the artists more, than they would have to charge, there could not be free streaming.

 

Somehow the entire structure of how artists are paid needs to change in the US, but how, I don't know. The laws and regulations have not really kept up with technology. It's not fair to those who are trying to earn their living from their art. Only the top artists make a lot of money in the music industry, most do not make that much.

 

And yeah, I don't think I should have to purchase the same album over and over (buying the album once, maybe 20 years ago, maybe rebuying the mp3, and then paying for it on Pandora), but as I said, most people are not buying the music anymore.

 

It's an interesting problem.

 

Everyone I know purchases music on iTunes. Teenagers and up.

[Kim in Appalachia]

I buy from Amazon, but most of the young kids I know don't, nor are they purchasing from iTunes. Many are downloading illegally. But also, many just stream, usually from Spotify or Pandora. If you ask them, they think buying the music is odd, since they may not care about the song in a month, or just because they can hear the songs anytime on the streaming services for free (a few I know are paying for the streaming services, but still, they don't bother purchasing the songs.).

 

The music industry has been dealing with this issue for a long time now.

[LostSurprise]

Derek Webb (recording artist, songwriter, co-owner of the artist-free-music-giveaway-site Noisetrade) had an interesting blog post on this issue. He was discussing how the site Spotify (music streaming) pays independent artists less than mainstream artists. He mentions that people often tell him he should be happy to get any money from streaming sites because the real benefit is exposure. He goes on to give an interesting discussion of the psychological effect of music-buying when people use streaming sites regularly and the powerful use of free content *if* the artist can make a direct connection with their fans.

[*Michelle*]

They'll have to figure something out. The entertainment gravy train is running out of steam. There are so many options out there and fewer dollars chasing them.

[tex-mex]

This has been a big issue for years, not just in regards to Pandora, but also the radio. In the US artists are not paid for radio play. But artists in other countries are paid, in the rest of the world, for radio play (but not here), and because the US doesn't reimburse foreign artists, US artists are not reimbursed overseas. (I think that was the issue, read about it years ago when they were lobbying for a change in the US law).

 

Then along comes Pandora and other streaming services, and they still don't get much in the way of reinbursement.

 

I don't know how to feel about it either. I buy the music I want, but that is not how the younger generation is functioning. Artists should be paid for their work, but how much and how it all works out is hard to figure out. It's not like Pandora is making much (if any) of a profit, or any of the other streaming services. If they had to pay the artists more, than they would have to charge, there could not be free streaming.

 

Somehow the entire structure of how artists are paid needs to change in the US, but how, I don't know. The laws and regulations have not really kept up with technology. It's not fair to those who are trying to earn their living from their art. Only the top artists make a lot of money in the music industry, most do not make that much.

 

And yeah, I don't think I should have to purchase the same album over and over (buying the album once, maybe 20 years ago, maybe rebuying the mp3, and then paying for it on Pandora), but as I said, most people are not buying the music anymore.

 

It's an interesting problem.

 

I agree.

 

The paradigm has shifted on the music industry and this is one of the ripple effects. My FIL co-wrote a oldy-moldy back in 1961 and earned millions from it via royalties. That being said, once his hit song passed the 20-25 year mark, he was well advised to sign for

and make him a nice chunk of $$ in the deal. If he were a artist (in the US, they do not earn any % of the royalties from radio, TV or movie airtime), then most artists try to appeal to their fanbase after 20 years by touring live back in the day. I think many songwriters don't like the idea of an artist profiting off their "hard work" in creating a hit song. But artists do get upset when they see the songwriter laugh all the way to the bank. Everyone knows who makes the $$ in that industry.

 

When Napster emerged and allowed free downloads, my FIL and others were worried for good reason. He saw a huge drop in royalties (the record companies keep an international file on all airtime and mail it to the songwriter or artist with the royalty check on a bi-annual basis) when Napster emerged. I honestly could also add that by that time, his genre of music was becoming less popular and sales of a hit song do lose $$ value as you go past the 30-40 year mark. FIL does see overseas popularity with markets in Japan and the UK with his song... but they tend to have a weird following for any artist IMO. But his annual $$ royalty has greatly diminished. And yes, I do see the future of music being greatly affected as the paradigm has shifted in favor for the consumer versus the record label weilding the power.

[Mrs Mungo]

Tex-Mex, that is sort of what I am taking about. How long should an artist hope to ride the millions-of-dollars-gravy-train without producing more songs or hits or drawing in crowds for shows or selling merchandise? I think it is unrealistic to believe you could live in high style for the rest of your life because you wrote one hit song.

 

And the paradigm is also changing in ways that benefit artists. Macklemore had a lot more weight behind him than a typical artist when Thrift Shop went number one without him being signed to a label.

[tex-mex]

Tex-Mex, that is sort of what I am taking about. How long should an artist hope to ride the millions-of-dollars-gravy-train without producing more songs or hits or drawing in crowds for shows or selling merchandise? I think it is unrealistic to believe you could live in high style for the rest of your life because you wrote one hit song.

 

And the paradigm is also changing in ways that benefit artists. Macklemore had a lot more weight behind him than a typical artist when Thrift Shop went number one without him being signed to a label.

 

My FIL's argument to that one was that yes, the artist's talent made his song popular. But without the skill of the song being crafted lyrically and musically... the artist would not be first vaulted to a hit song. They both need each other. But my FIL always thought the artist had numerous opportunities to make a boatload more of $$ that he ever could do via appearances, concerts, fan memorabilia, and more. Today's artists make far more $$ IMO thanks to social media and how more intrusive gossip & paparazzi report. But that also comes with less privacy and more headaches. The artist has to work beyond the hit song to stay relevant and make $$. You cannot live the high life off one hit song... and we know that one way too well!

 

And sadly, yes, the money train does not last forever. Managers can run off with the $$. Relatives come out of the woodwork demanding $$. It is like winning the lottery. That is why one has to invest carefully the $$ made and not live like a Kardashian or Justin Beiber... as decades later, your retirement and your inheritors (i.e. grandchildren) will be depending on your estate as a legacy. My child is using the gift of a 529 college account courtesy of good ol' Grandpa being wise. He also worked his butt off as a Fire Captain and invested wisely in real estate once out of the Hollywood spotlight -- and lived within his means frugally too.

[BarbecueMom]

The recording industry really needs to think about how people are being exposed to new music before going after streaming sites and YouTube vidders and such. About half of the music on my iTunes account was purchased after hearing the song used in a fan video. I have never, ever heard a song by Florence + the Machine, VAST, Damien Rice, or Hurts on the radio, yet their music makes up half my legally purchased playlist, thanks to "copyright infringement".

 

The recording studios don't wield the power anymore in controlling which songs become hits by sending them off to radio stations and telling them, "This is a hit single, play it often." Then they can't tell us to go spend $15 on a CD of shoddy music to get that one catchy song, since we can download just that one good song. The old royalties structure doesn't work for new music. We hear new music on TV shows and video games and on commercials and Internet videos and on things like Pandora. Songs are targeted at us, based on our other likes and interests.

 

Artists would do well to start promoting their own music. They could also start focusing their efforts on changing their compensation structure with record companies and radio/streaming sites rather than taking potshots at music fans for not running out to buy hard copies of their 20-year-old music. Some of us had these CD's years ago, and now those and the concert tickets have been replaced by children's books and sports fees.

 

On the bright side, the referenced song reminds me so much of middle school, so I think I can safely say that part of my life is now in the distant past. :-P

[Mekanamom]

LOL- I am listening to Cracker on the radio right now. Just had to pop in to say these guys are working hard touring and staying relevant. (Am I right that they have gone indie, too?). I don't have any good answers to fix the music industry. :-/

 

 

[Spy Car]

 

My FIL co-wrote a oldy-moldy back in 1961 and earned millions from it via royalties.

 

 

"Runaway" is one of my favorite songs, ever!

 

Love it, love it, love it!!!

 

Did he write the organ solo too? The whole thing is a classic.

 

Bill (who is choaking on the description "oldy-moldy" :D)

[tex-mex]

"Runaway" is one of my favorite songs, ever!

 

Love it, love it, love it!!!

 

Did he write the organ solo too? The whole thing is a classic.

 

Bill (who is choaking on the description "oldy-moldy" :D)

 

Awww... thanks, Bill!

 

Well, from what I understand... the story goes that both FIL and Del were at the Hi-Lo (bar) Club in Michigan at a paying band gig. It was during the break that FIL started to to tweak around on his Musitron and the bridge (piano solo) was created. Del loved it and came up with the first couple of lyrics right then and there. American Bandstand had a nationwide contest for guessing what instrument made that unique sound in the bridge... basically FIL used an old Clavoline, vaccuum tubes, and more to develop one of the early electronic synthesizers. He never patented it due to using Clavoline parts, but others like Moog cashed in on the electronic snythesizer sound of the 60's and made tons of $$$.

[nmoira]

LOL- I am listening to Cracker on the radio right now. Just had to pop in to say these guys are working hard touring and staying relevant. (Am I right that they have gone indie, too?). I don't have any good answers to fix the music industry. :-/

 

 

Inspired by current events, I was streaming Cracker and, later, CVB today. :D

 

 

As a consumer in the 21st Century, I'm Veruca Salt: I want everything now. I don't want to buy albums any more because it doesn't make sense. CDs take up space and have none of the redeeming features LPs had (album art, inserts, etc.). I'm want to listen to whatever I want, whenever. I enjoy the convenience of digital. Ditto for video content and books. I have no patient for orphaned titles or the letters OOP or excuses and rationalizations. There's no excuse anymore.

 

But I'm wiling to pay a reasonable amount for the convenience. While I like Pandora and have been a paid subscriber since the beginning, I don't think their business model is going to allow them to remain viable in the face of Apple (who is starting a Pandora-esque streaming service), Spotify, and Google (I recently subscribed to All Access and am *very* happy with it). Amazon is a wildcard, and I don't know if they're going to offer a subscription service. Microsoft is desperately trying to gain market share, as is Sony with Music Unlimited. And there's always Sirius radio. It's going to come down to features, because they'll all be priced within a dollar of each other. All Pandora has is streaming personalized radio and a few lame ads.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Awww... thanks, Bill!

 

Well, from what I understand... the story goes that both FIL and Del were at the Hi-Lo (bar) Club in Michigan at a paying band gig. It was during the break that FIL started to to tweak around on his Musitron and the bridge (piano solo) was created. Del loved it and came up with the first couple of lyrics right then and there. American Bandstand had a nationwide contest for guessing what instrument made that unique sound in the bridge... basically FIL used an old Clavoline, vaccuum tubes, and more to develop one of the early electronic synthesizers. He never patented it due to using Clavoline parts, but others like Moog cashed in on the electronic snythesizer sound of the 60's and made tons of $$$.

 

 

IMO the solo in Runaway deeply and profoundly changed the sound of rock and roll in the 1960s. It was (and is) absolutely brilliant.

 

Without out it would we have had the Zombies (She's Not There), or the Animals (House of the Rsing Sun), or Question Mark and the Mysterians (96 Tears), or Los Bravos (Black is Black), or Procol Harum (Whiter Shade of Pale), or Iron Butteryfly (In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida), or the Monkees (I'm a Believer), or any of the great Doors songs? I don't know that we would. They all followed Runaway, which was (is) an absolutely brilliant and transformative song.

 

Please give your FIL a big hug and words of profund thanks from a true fan, who not only understands the importance of Runaway in rock history, but who has loved the song since childhood (when it was first released)—and who, to this day, is known to to belt it out when driving alone. I know it note-for-note.

 

What an achievement!

 

Bill

 

PS. Does he still have a custom Musitron? And was it ever officially "sampled?" I have to imagine the keyboard world would love to had "that sound."

[Murphy101]

Tex-Mex, that is sort of what I am taking about. How long should an artist hope to ride the millions-of-dollars-gravy-train without producing more songs or hits or drawing in crowds for shows or selling merchandise? I think it is unrealistic to believe you could live in high style for the rest of your life because you wrote one hit song.

And the paradigm is also changing in ways that benefit artists. Macklemore had a lot more weight behind him than a typical artist when Thrift Shop went number one without him being signed to a label.

 

 

I don't know that I agree. Do you feel other artists should somehow lose profit rights to their creations? If so, after how many years? Novels for example? I think it's nuts that I'm expected to pay the same for a digital book that I might not get to keep, can't sell, can't mail to a friend or whatever. The publisher or label company is creating the same product for a lot less money, but charging the same or nearly the same for it and STILL griping about the cost. I don't fault anyone wanting to make a living, even a very nice living. But if they keep it up, they are going to end up shooting themselves in the foot bc I don't think people will spend more when many aren't willing to spend what is asked now.

 

Personally? I have never once in my life bought music. Not even before computers back when I was a teen. I listen to the radio. If I like the song, the channel stays, if I don't, it doesn't. Dh buys music via iTunes and paid to upgrade his pandora account. I have a pandora account that dh set up for use in the van on my van radio but I haven't done anything with it other than thumb up or down as the mood strikes me. If they charge me for it, I'll just go back to FM. *shrug*

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

I don't know that I agree. Do you feel other artists should somehow lose profit rights to their creations? If so, after how many years? Novels for example?

 

 

I did not mean to imply that they should not receive profits. But, I will have to come back when I am not on my phone to type it out more.

[nmoira]

I think that performers and songwriters (or their estates) should continue to receive royalties for a reasonable amount of time. If somebody writes an immensely popular song that keeps getting recorded/played through the years why [this was originally 'went,' a typo] shouldn't they be able to retire on it? It's important to remember that it's not the reality for most writers and performers.

 

That said, I can't wrap my head around why a piece of music can still be under copyright when recordings of it are so old they are in the public domain. The woman who made Sita Sings the Blues ran into trouble with this and hasn't made any money from her film because of the royalties she has to pay. And Happy Birthday published in 1893. What insanity allows it to still be under copyright? There are many pieces of music similarly under copyright that are part of our cultural heritage, something that seems not to enter into the discussion when copyrights (seemingly invariably) get extended.

All Pandora has is streaming personalized radio and a few lame ads.

 

 

I wonder how much money Pandora has to give to the artists. I like the Pandora, but I just see the same four ads over and over again for services I will never purchase. (Dating site? No thank you.) I wonder if they even make money on their advertisements, or if they are just a way to annoy you into paying for the version without advertisements?

[nmoira]

I wonder how much money Pandora has to give to the artists. I like the Pandora, but I just see the same four ads over and over again for services I will never purchase. (Dating site? No thank you.) I wonder if they even make money on their advertisements, or if they are just a way to annoy you into paying for the version without advertisements?

 

 

Sixty percent of their revenue goes for content. This is four to six times higher than services like Sirius and traditional radio.

Sixty percent of their revenue goes for content. This is four to six times higher than services like Sirius and traditional radio.

 

 

But the question is, "what is the absolute number"? I can't believe that the four companies who keep sending me advertisements for things I never buy are paying more than pennies a month for the privilege.

[nmoira]

But the question is, "what is the absolute number"? I can't believe that the four companies who keep sending me advertisements for things I never buy are paying more than pennies a month for the privilege.

 

 

Revenues:

http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/05/23/pandora-beats-the-street-on-strong-sales-as-revenue-grows-58-to-128-5m-stock-jumps/

 

Payments to artists:

http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/6/26/4466152/pandora-to-pink-floyd-youve-been-misled-about-what-we-pay-artists

[Murphy101]

I don't agree. It seems wrong to me to say that just bc a song becomes so popular it becomes part of cultural history or bc the song is really old, that the singer/writer doesn't have a right to it any longer. I guess I view music the same as any written piece of literature. I fully expect the writer to keep rights to it and to very possibly pass those rights onto to their estate after death.

 

Really it is so rare for someone in either industry to make enough money to live off of that I have a hard time denying rights at any point.

 

I think that performers and songwriters (or their estates) should continue to receive royalties for a reasonable amount of time. If somebody writes an immensely popular song that keeps getting recorded/played through the years went shouldn't they be able to retire on it? It's important to remember that it's not the reality for most writers and performers.

 

That said, I can't wrap my head around why a piece of music can still be under copyright when recordings of it are so old they are in the public domain. The woman who made Sita Sings the Blues ran into trouble with this and hasn't made any money from her film because of the royalties she has to pay. And Happy Birthday published in 1893. What insanity allows it to still be under copyright? There are many pieces of music similarly under copyright that are part of our cultural heritage, something that seems not to enter into the discussion when copyrights (seemingly invariably) get extended.

[nmoira]

I don't agree. It seems wrong to me to say that just bc a song becomes so popular it becomes part of cultural history or bc the song is really old, that the singer/writer doesn't have a right to it any longer. I guess I view music the same as any written piece of literature. I fully expect the writer to keep rights to it and to very possibly pass those rights onto to their estate after death.

 

Really it is so rare for someone in either industry to make enough money to live off of that I have a hard time denying rights at any point.

 

I do think songs should be treated like literature with respect to copyright, but I don't think 75 years is an unreasonable amount of time before artistic works pass onto the public domain. More than that, no. The songs I'm talking about as "part of our cultural heritage" are over 100 years old, with recordings long in the public domain.

 

Are you saying that nothing should pass onto the public domain? I'm confused.

 

ETA: There was a typo in my post you quoted. I had meant "Why shouldn't they be able to retire on it?" "When" made no sense. :)

[Murphy101]

Idk. I have conflicting sentiments about public domain. I like cheaper. :) but I also don't have a problem with an artist passing the revenue of their legacy onto to their spouse or heirs.

 

If it's in public domain, then what's the copyright problem you were referring to?

[nmoira]

Idk. I have conflicting sentiments about public domain. I like cheaper. :) but I also don't have a problem with an artist passing the revenue of their legacy onto to their spouse or heirs.

 

If it's in public domain, then what's the copyright problem you were referring to?

 

Recordings so old they are in the public domain, so there are no royalties required for the performer. The song/music is still under copyright, however, and those royalties must be paid. It's messed up.

[LostSurprise]

We're in an era of growing copyright extension. Companies like Disney have financed the extension of public copyright until 'public domain' almost doesn't have meaning anymore. This makes it easier for us to enter the Internet era of leased, not owned, information.

 

What is public domain good for? Free information, generic drugs, consumers, new techniques and machinery available to other fields, competing brands with lower prices, art, sampling, remixes, homage, and simply building on what came before. We want innovation to be rewarded, but we also want that information available to everyone after a time. We don't want one person or corporation to hide something of value forever. When it could help other fields/people/innovators.

[Murphy101]

Hmmm.

 

Over all I agree. But no one is using someone else's music to further the good of mankind or lessen suffering either.

 

I'd be okay with a copyright of 125 years. (just to cover the few folks who might live to be 114. ;) )

[nmoira]

Hmmm.

 

Over all I agree. But no one is using someone else's music to further the good of mankind or lessen suffering either.

 

I'd be okay with a copyright of 125 years. (just to cover the few folks who might live to be 114. ;) )

 

 

I'd be okay with the longer of life or 75 years to cover such contingencies. :)

[LostSurprise]

How do you cover documentaries? History? Archives? Artists who remix or make social commentary? Right now a person can not make a documentary using a song without the author's permission. What if its a critique and its important to supply the song to understand the social context? What if a filmmaker is making a documentary and someone comes in with a radio? They can lose an entire scene just because a song is playing and the author does not approve of the doc. subject.

 

I can't really see that its important for someone to 'own' a song for over 100 years, especially if it means anything to our collective culture. They will always 'own' it because they receive attribution, but who among us should be able to control what we make for our entire lifetimes and beyond? The world changes too quickly and at some point we need to let our creations go.

[nmoira]

How do you cover documentaries? History? Archives? Artists who remix or make social commentary? Right now a person can not make a documentary using a song without the author's permission. What if its a critique and its important to supply the song to understand the social context? What if a filmmaker is making a documentary and someone comes in with a radio? They can lose an entire scene just because a song is playing and the author does not approve of the doc. subject.

 

 

I'm not well versed as to what constitutes fair use for documentary purposes. Maybe Bill could weigh in?

[Spy Car]

 

 

I'm not well versed as to what constitutes fair use for documentary purposes. Maybe Bill could weigh in?

 

I don't know that I have "the right answer," as it is one of those things that people can always test in court (which is a problem for film-makers). In my experience, in independent documentaries people feel it is "fair use" if the music is fleeting, incidental to the scene, not altered, remains "in-sync" with the original action (and is not edited to), and was a natural part of the scene (not something controlled by the film-makers).

 

When there is a question, documentary film-makers attempt to get rights. Often insurance companies (that cover these things under "errors and omissions policies" require clearance).

 

I've had to cut performances of songs (by amateurs) because we could not get publishing rights, or they were too expensive. In some cases I think they would have passed the "fair use" test, but it is costly to test the point if one is going to be sued.

 

Generally, music that is naturally part of a scene, and not manipulated by the film-maker, and incidental is seen as "fair use." But producers are increasingly nervous that the lines of fair use are not bright and clear.

 

I don't really know "the law" on fair use, so much as the norms of documentary film-makers consider it to be. And some producers are more risk-averse than others. People can sue you even if you are with-in your rights. That's the problem.

 

The "defense" of many documentary film-markers is being too poor to be worth suing.

 

Bill

[Murphy101]

How do you cover documentaries? History? Archives? Artists who remix or make social commentary? Right now a person can not make a documentary using a song without the author's permission. What if its a critique and its important to supply the song to understand the social context? What if a filmmaker is making a documentary and someone comes in with a radio? They can lose an entire scene just because a song is playing and the author does not approve of the doc. subject.

I can't really see that its important for someone to 'own' a song for over 100 years, especially if it means anything to our collective culture. They will always 'own' it because they receive attribution, but who among us should be able to control what we make for our entire lifetimes and beyond? The world changes too quickly and at some point we need to let our creations go.

 

I disagree. If I own it - it's mine. You (general you) don't get to tell me I have no right to own it just bc you think I have owned it long enough and it's your turn to take it from me and give it to the masses. Nope. I'm not okay with that line of argument. Especially as pertains to something no where near vital, like music.

 

As for documentaries, I tend to agree with Bill. I think the majority of it would be fleeting and under fair use. And with today's tech, they can edit it out of the background if necessary. (a small pita to do, but possible) Tho really the problem is that they would need to defend themselves, righteously or not, that's expensive. Ideally, the defendant would be able to prove their doc didn't use more than blank amount of the material and it was incidental, and have it promptly dismissed and that would be the end of it. Minimal fuss and expense. I'd be okay with the infringement complaint system being streamlined to avoid expensive messes on both sides. I don't think a person should have to spend a lot of money to protect their copyright either.

[nmoira]

Thanks, Bill. :)

Revenues:

http://m.techcrunch....5m-stock-jumps/

 

Payments to artists:

http://mobile.thever...-we-pay-artists

 

 

Thanks for the link! To summarize: 1) Pandora is still losing money. 2) Their ad revenues are $100M per quarter, and they have 200 M users, and a catalog of 1 million songs. So, that's 50 cents per 3 months per user. Clearly, they don't have a ton of money they are hoarding from the musicians.

[tex-mex]

I don't agree. It seems wrong to me to say that just bc a song becomes so popular it becomes part of cultural history or bc the song is really old, that the singer/writer doesn't have a right to it any longer. I guess I view music the same as any written piece of literature. I fully expect the writer to keep rights to it and to very possibly pass those rights onto to their estate after death.

 

 

 

From what I understand, the copyright ownership of the song (in my example) for FIL is 75 years after he co-wrote it. And it passes to his heirs after death up to the original 75 year agreement. But that does not mean he (or the estate) are entitled to 75 years of profit in royalties as the popularity of the song decreases over the decades. Thus, not making the estate much money. After the 75 years, copyright is then reverted to the record label or whoever else has bought the rights to the song (like Michael Jackson bought the Beatles' library and more).

 

There is now a huge market in lawyers trying to be like MJ and going to one-hit wonder songwriters (like my FIL) and getting them to "cash out now" -- sort of like a reverse mortgage of the future royalties until their death and after death... the rights to the song goes to the lawyer.

[tex-mex]

IMO the solo in Runaway deeply and profoundly changed the sound of rock and roll in the 1960s. It was (and is) absolutely brilliant.

 

Without out it would we have had the Zombies (She's Not There), or the Animals (House of the Rsing Sun), or Question Mark and the Mysterians (96 Tears), or Los Bravos (Black is Black), or Procol Harum (Whiter Shade of Pale), or Iron Butteryfly (In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida), or the Monkees (I'm a Believer), or any of the great Doors songs? I don't know that we would. They all followed Runaway, which was (is) an absolutely brilliant and transformative song.

 

Please give your FIL a big hug and words of profund thanks from a true fan, who not only understands the importance of Runaway in rock history, but who has loved the song since childhood (when it was first released)—and who, to this day, is known to to belt it out when driving alone. I know it note-for-note.

 

What an achievement!

 

Bill

 

PS. Does he still have a custom Musitron? And was it ever officially "sampled?" I have to imagine the keyboard world would love to had "that sound."

 

:grouphug: Will do, Bill! Your kind words will make him very happy! I don't know if the Musitron has even been professionally sampled in a studio. It is still in his studio in his home. But from what we know, either the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame & Museum (Del and Runaway was inducted back in 1999) is interested in the Musitron and the Smithsonian has inquired about it. (???)