| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
AllofMyMP3?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news  Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. What the music industry needs is a copyright pricing structure that fairly compensates the actual producers of music AND doesn't rip off consumers of that product...and they don't have it yet. One of the reasons midi sequencers like myself stopped sharing some files on the 'net is because of the threat of lawsuits. Actually, not threats, but real litigation in some cases that shut down most sites that featured midi files. Midi files are not music recordings like mp3s or .wav files. They are a series of instructions to a sound board, card or instrument that can receive midi instructions. The sound card or instrument then plays the sequence using it's own, on board voices. Royalty collectors like ASCAP and BMI quickly (and perhaps correctly, depending on your personal feelings on the subject) started to threaten web site owners that had midi files of popular music considered to be subject to copyright protection. Even though it was not technically a recording or performance by a musician, the fact that someone sequenced a series of instructions for a midi compatible instrument to reproduce, they claimed copyright infringement. Original, copyright free compositions are encouraged of course and often stolen as a basis for new music by songwriters in the industry. RCE Sheesh. Well, most of the music I like was written by guys who have been dead for more than 100 years, so I assume any MIDI sequencers who code it are beyond the reach of the ASCAP liars, er, lawyers. My understanding, based on really limited info, is that iTunes forks over 70 cents of each 99 cents collected, to the "owner" of the tune. That's waaaaay too high. A dime is more like it, with a nickel on top of that for administration, and a nickel on top of that for Apple's profit...twenty to twenty-five cents a tune is sufficient. What a silly thing to say. How do you know what's "way too high"? Based on what? IF a CD has 12 tunes on it, and the royalty is 70 cents a tune, that's what, $8.40 in royalties for a CD download? Any bets that on a CD selling for $12.00 at a store, the artist is getting 75% of that? If the typical hardcover novel is selling for $25 these days, how much of that do you think the typical author receives? And I know it costs more to physically produce a book than a CD, but even so, a typical author's deal might work out to a buck or two a book, maybe a bit more for a proven best-seller type author, and even more for a major leaguer. But nothing approaching 70% of gross selling price. I have absolutely no idea about any of these numbers, and how they filter down to the artists (writer, performer, band members, etc). Neither do you. So, I choose not to engage in any conjecture. Apple states it forks over 70 cents of the 99 cents collected to the "owner" of the tune. Yes, but who really is the owner? The song writer? The publishing company who represents the song writer? The artist who performs it? What cut does the band get, if any? What about the agent? |
|
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
wrote in message oups.com... Doug Kanter wrote: "RCE" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. What the music industry needs is a copyright pricing structure that fairly compensates the actual producers of music AND doesn't rip off consumers of that product...and they don't have it yet. One of the reasons midi sequencers like myself stopped sharing some files on the 'net is because of the threat of lawsuits. Actually, not threats, but real litigation in some cases that shut down most sites that featured midi files. Midi files are not music recordings like mp3s or .wav files. They are a series of instructions to a sound board, card or instrument that can receive midi instructions. The sound card or instrument then plays the sequence using it's own, on board voices. Royalty collectors like ASCAP and BMI quickly (and perhaps correctly, depending on your personal feelings on the subject) started to threaten web site owners that had midi files of popular music considered to be subject to copyright protection. Even though it was not technically a recording or performance by a musician, the fact that someone sequenced a series of instructions for a midi compatible instrument to reproduce, they claimed copyright infringement. Original, copyright free compositions are encouraged of course and often stolen as a basis for new music by songwriters in the industry. RCE I don't recall whether it's BMI or ASCAP, but one of them collects fees from bar owners who include karioke in their activities. Unbelievable. Most Karaoke formats now get around some copyright issues in a unique kind of way. When a song comes up, let's say, "I'm Going Straight to Hell" by Drivin' and Cryin' the credits on the screen will say Played in the style of "I'm Going Straight to Hell". This takes care of some legalities as far as copyright, but I know that ASCAP still collects from the owners. If you are ever down around Naples, NY, and hit the Naples Hotel bar for a beer, and there is karaoke there, the guy that owns the system is Pat, and his wife Sissy. He's the karaoke king of the area. I'm allergic to karioke. :-) I'd rather swallow push pins sideways. |
|
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
|
|
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. What the music industry needs is a copyright pricing structure that fairly compensates the actual producers of music AND doesn't rip off consumers of that product...and they don't have it yet. One of the reasons midi sequencers like myself stopped sharing some files on the 'net is because of the threat of lawsuits. Actually, not threats, but real litigation in some cases that shut down most sites that featured midi files. Midi files are not music recordings like mp3s or .wav files. They are a series of instructions to a sound board, card or instrument that can receive midi instructions. The sound card or instrument then plays the sequence using it's own, on board voices. Royalty collectors like ASCAP and BMI quickly (and perhaps correctly, depending on your personal feelings on the subject) started to threaten web site owners that had midi files of popular music considered to be subject to copyright protection. Even though it was not technically a recording or performance by a musician, the fact that someone sequenced a series of instructions for a midi compatible instrument to reproduce, they claimed copyright infringement. Original, copyright free compositions are encouraged of course and often stolen as a basis for new music by songwriters in the industry. RCE Sheesh. Well, most of the music I like was written by guys who have been dead for more than 100 years, so I assume any MIDI sequencers who code it are beyond the reach of the ASCAP liars, er, lawyers. My understanding, based on really limited info, is that iTunes forks over 70 cents of each 99 cents collected, to the "owner" of the tune. That's waaaaay too high. A dime is more like it, with a nickel on top of that for administration, and a nickel on top of that for Apple's profit...twenty to twenty-five cents a tune is sufficient. What a silly thing to say. How do you know what's "way too high"? Based on what? IF a CD has 12 tunes on it, and the royalty is 70 cents a tune, that's what, $8.40 in royalties for a CD download? Any bets that on a CD selling for $12.00 at a store, the artist is getting 75% of that? If the typical hardcover novel is selling for $25 these days, how much of that do you think the typical author receives? And I know it costs more to physically produce a book than a CD, but even so, a typical author's deal might work out to a buck or two a book, maybe a bit more for a proven best-seller type author, and even more for a major leaguer. But nothing approaching 70% of gross selling price. I have absolutely no idea about any of these numbers, and how they filter down to the artists (writer, performer, band members, etc). Neither do you. So, I choose not to engage in any conjecture. The truth of the matter is no price for a CD or Download is too high or unreasonable. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. They will quickly lower their price if enough people agree with you. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
|
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. What the music industry needs is a copyright pricing structure that fairly compensates the actual producers of music AND doesn't rip off consumers of that product...and they don't have it yet. One of the reasons midi sequencers like myself stopped sharing some files on the 'net is because of the threat of lawsuits. Actually, not threats, but real litigation in some cases that shut down most sites that featured midi files. Midi files are not music recordings like mp3s or .wav files. They are a series of instructions to a sound board, card or instrument that can receive midi instructions. The sound card or instrument then plays the sequence using it's own, on board voices. Royalty collectors like ASCAP and BMI quickly (and perhaps correctly, depending on your personal feelings on the subject) started to threaten web site owners that had midi files of popular music considered to be subject to copyright protection. Even though it was not technically a recording or performance by a musician, the fact that someone sequenced a series of instructions for a midi compatible instrument to reproduce, they claimed copyright infringement. Original, copyright free compositions are encouraged of course and often stolen as a basis for new music by songwriters in the industry. RCE Sheesh. Well, most of the music I like was written by guys who have been dead for more than 100 years, so I assume any MIDI sequencers who code it are beyond the reach of the ASCAP liars, er, lawyers. My understanding, based on really limited info, is that iTunes forks over 70 cents of each 99 cents collected, to the "owner" of the tune. That's waaaaay too high. A dime is more like it, with a nickel on top of that for administration, and a nickel on top of that for Apple's profit...twenty to twenty-five cents a tune is sufficient. What a silly thing to say. How do you know what's "way too high"? Based on what? IF a CD has 12 tunes on it, and the royalty is 70 cents a tune, that's what, $8.40 in royalties for a CD download? Any bets that on a CD selling for $12.00 at a store, the artist is getting 75% of that? If the typical hardcover novel is selling for $25 these days, how much of that do you think the typical author receives? And I know it costs more to physically produce a book than a CD, but even so, a typical author's deal might work out to a buck or two a book, maybe a bit more for a proven best-seller type author, and even more for a major leaguer. But nothing approaching 70% of gross selling price. I have absolutely no idea about any of these numbers, and how they filter down to the artists (writer, performer, band members, etc). Neither do you. So, I choose not to engage in any conjecture. Apple states it forks over 70 cents of the 99 cents collected to the "owner" of the tune. Yes, but who really is the owner? The song writer? The publishing company who represents the song writer? The artist who performs it? What cut does the band get, if any? What about the agent? The owner is normally the record label (though there are exceptions for very popular performers, such as Ray Charles), and the artist, the band and the song writer all have agreements as to their cut. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
|
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message . .. Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message news Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. What the music industry needs is a copyright pricing structure that fairly compensates the actual producers of music AND doesn't rip off consumers of that product...and they don't have it yet. One of the reasons midi sequencers like myself stopped sharing some files on the 'net is because of the threat of lawsuits. Actually, not threats, but real litigation in some cases that shut down most sites that featured midi files. Midi files are not music recordings like mp3s or .wav files. They are a series of instructions to a sound board, card or instrument that can receive midi instructions. The sound card or instrument then plays the sequence using it's own, on board voices. Royalty collectors like ASCAP and BMI quickly (and perhaps correctly, depending on your personal feelings on the subject) started to threaten web site owners that had midi files of popular music considered to be subject to copyright protection. Even though it was not technically a recording or performance by a musician, the fact that someone sequenced a series of instructions for a midi compatible instrument to reproduce, they claimed copyright infringement. Original, copyright free compositions are encouraged of course and often stolen as a basis for new music by songwriters in the industry. RCE Sheesh. Well, most of the music I like was written by guys who have been dead for more than 100 years, so I assume any MIDI sequencers who code it are beyond the reach of the ASCAP liars, er, lawyers. My understanding, based on really limited info, is that iTunes forks over 70 cents of each 99 cents collected, to the "owner" of the tune. That's waaaaay too high. A dime is more like it, with a nickel on top of that for administration, and a nickel on top of that for Apple's profit...twenty to twenty-five cents a tune is sufficient. What a silly thing to say. How do you know what's "way too high"? Based on what? IF a CD has 12 tunes on it, and the royalty is 70 cents a tune, that's what, $8.40 in royalties for a CD download? Any bets that on a CD selling for $12.00 at a store, the artist is getting 75% of that? If the typical hardcover novel is selling for $25 these days, how much of that do you think the typical author receives? And I know it costs more to physically produce a book than a CD, but even so, a typical author's deal might work out to a buck or two a book, maybe a bit more for a proven best-seller type author, and even more for a major leaguer. But nothing approaching 70% of gross selling price. I have absolutely no idea about any of these numbers, and how they filter down to the artists (writer, performer, band members, etc). Neither do you. So, I choose not to engage in any conjecture. Apple states it forks over 70 cents of the 99 cents collected to the "owner" of the tune. Yes, but who really is the owner? The song writer? The publishing company who represents the song writer? The artist who performs it? What cut does the band get, if any? What about the agent? The owner is normally the record label (though there are exceptions for very popular performers, such as Ray Charles), and the artist, the band and the song writer all have agreements as to their cut. Right. We can only guess. And, it would vary widely depending on the band's "culture". I suspect the Grateful Dead's arrangement was problem different from other bands. The bulk of their income came from concerts. In interviews, they said that albums were made largely to satisfy contractual obligations with the record company. |
|
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news Apple states it forks over 70 cents of the 99 cents collected to the "owner" of the tune. If I recall correctly, the "owner" is the royalty collector. The artist and/or record company assigns the copyright rights in exchange for a small royalty payment - 5 or 10 cents. The royalty collector (BMI, ASCAP and many others now) collect the lion's share. The artists had to do this - they had no means of enforcing copyright protection of their work. It was that or nothing. RCE |
|
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
"RCE" wrote in message ... I "ripped" an original composition I did a few years ago from my own CD and posted it "over there". It's in windows media file format. It probably won't appeal to everybody - it's a haunting kind of tune, best for quiet, reflective moods. I'd post some other sequences that are bit more lively, but I might get sued because I didn't write them. For those that are interested, all the voices and sounds are from a Yamaha keyboard, recorded using about 14 different tracks in Cakewalk 3.0. RCE |
|
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
AllofMyMP3?
Doug Kanter wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Doug Kanter wrote: "RCE" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. What the music industry needs is a copyright pricing structure that fairly compensates the actual producers of music AND doesn't rip off consumers of that product...and they don't have it yet. One of the reasons midi sequencers like myself stopped sharing some files on the 'net is because of the threat of lawsuits. Actually, not threats, but real litigation in some cases that shut down most sites that featured midi files. Midi files are not music recordings like mp3s or .wav files. They are a series of instructions to a sound board, card or instrument that can receive midi instructions. The sound card or instrument then plays the sequence using it's own, on board voices. Royalty collectors like ASCAP and BMI quickly (and perhaps correctly, depending on your personal feelings on the subject) started to threaten web site owners that had midi files of popular music considered to be subject to copyright protection. Even though it was not technically a recording or performance by a musician, the fact that someone sequenced a series of instructions for a midi compatible instrument to reproduce, they claimed copyright infringement. Original, copyright free compositions are encouraged of course and often stolen as a basis for new music by songwriters in the industry. RCE I don't recall whether it's BMI or ASCAP, but one of them collects fees from bar owners who include karioke in their activities. Unbelievable. Most Karaoke formats now get around some copyright issues in a unique kind of way. When a song comes up, let's say, "I'm Going Straight to Hell" by Drivin' and Cryin' the credits on the screen will say Played in the style of "I'm Going Straight to Hell". This takes care of some legalities as far as copyright, but I know that ASCAP still collects from the owners. If you are ever down around Naples, NY, and hit the Naples Hotel bar for a beer, and there is karaoke there, the guy that owns the system is Pat, and his wife Sissy. He's the karaoke king of the area. I'm allergic to karioke. :-) I'd rather swallow push pins sideways. I like it, I've heard some really good performers, when going to decent events. That's the key. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| AllofMyMP3? | General | |||
| AllofMyMP3? | General | |||
Linear Mode
