Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Tone, Aug 8, 2018.
Well that certainly sucks.....
David Crosby Rails Against the 'Theft' of Streaming Music
If you're interested in the topic - this article is eye opening.
"BAby I Don't Love Your Pay"
It really is a crime how musicians are being ripped off by not only illegal downloads but also how little they are paid by streaming services. Fans should remember this next time they complain about the price of concert tickets these days. It really is the only way musicians can make any money anymore.
Please support live music --- and your favorite artists/musicians --- by attending their shows.
Perhaps he is looking at it the wrong way. People could find Frampton Comes Alive in the used bins for a few dollars (perhaps even less) and never pay him a cent for the rest of his life. Or if they have less scruples, they could likely find an pirate copy of the song out there on the Internet and not pay anything to hear it. In other words, there are worse things than receiving a $1700 check for an old song he wrote and recorded 40 years ago.
That becomes an interesting question. If the artist was originally paid, via a contract, whatever the terms, and was fairly and legally compensated per the terms of said contract, what are the expectations from a legal perspective of any future use of that music beyond the original contract terms?
I'm not a lawyer, or a musician so I may be waaaay out of my depth here, but it seems to me that "sales" of a song 40+ years after the original album was made wouldn't be covered by that original contract. No one back then could have predicted streaming, digital piracy, etc. What constitutes "fair pay" with a situation like Frampton's?
If you started working at a company 40 years ago should you no longer get paid?
I expect the contract included the right to use in all media ever invented and entitled him to a specified percentage of revenues received from such uses. I am sure he has made a good chunk of change from FCA over the years even if recent checks are smaller than those he received in the 70s. If he believes his record company is not giving him what he contracted for, I expect he has the right to seek to audit them and recover anything they are not providing him that he is owed.
You may not be a lawyer or a musican Rhody, but you are a thinker. Great points. You hit the nail on the head, especially with what should constitute "fair pay" for streaming and should all artists be paid equally. Should it matter if the artist is new and just getting established versus someone like Frampton who earned many millions of dollars off that song decades ago?
I wonder if Crosby ever sold his schooner and plane?
They cannot be inexpensive to maintain and a crimp on his balance sheet if he is not earning as much income as he used to.
Oh, man, where's Taylor Swift when we need her!
I’ve heard and read similar irrational reasons to defend paltry, measly Royalty Payments to Artists.
That logic is flawed, flimsy, and just unjustifiable.
True but I think that Crosby probably wouldn't want any of those options either. It isn't like they can put the genie back in the bottle though. I think they continue to raise this in hope that the royalty arrangements would change. I feel for those who had crappier royalty arrangements.
True, it is a flawed argument but, to a degree, that is the reality of music. I wish it wasn't and using this as a crutch isn't justifiable but when has that ever stopped the rip off I mean music industry from underpaying people?
The fact is that things need to change now.
OK .. why lightbulb? What you posted is mere conclusion.
They are either covered or the rights revert to the artist after a certain period of time. In earlier, sleazier days, artist may have had a one time payout contract, but the royalty rate is built into all modern contracts.
The difference with streaming is the providers are paying the labels but the artists aren't getting squat. Streaming is a chimera, in some ways like airplay and in some ways akin to a download.
You should consider that under the original Copyright Act in 1909, a copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. In year 28, it was be eligible for renewal for another 28 years. Otherwise it expired. Now it just keeps getting longer and longer due to special interests like Disney with influence in Washington. From a public policy perspective, many feel these changes do not serve the public interest.
This is true but not justification for stealing their creativity.
What are the compensation terms? Is pay contracted in perpetuity or is there a time limit? We don't know the terms in Frampton's case, but let's say hypothetically that he was contracted for X amount for the album as a whole, and Y amount for residual sales for a period of 10 years. That seems pretty cut and dried, yes?
Now your analogy of working for a company for 40 years isn't apt - Frampton stopped working at that company when the terms of the original contract expired. Why should he be owed money on non-contractual sales of his music? I'm not saying it's right, but what if that's the case?
Not really. $1700.00 for 55 million streams is paltry compensation, amounting to roughly $0.00003 per spin. That is not equitable or justifiable under any scenario as far as I am concerned. The present-day music distribution model is totally corrupt. Record labels use their catalogue assets to strike lucrative deals with streaming service providers, whereby the labels generate healthy revenues (in some instances record-breaking revenues) and the streaming service providers, while not all operating in the black, generate large enough revenues to generate growing stock value and to pay lucrative executive salaries. And the consumer looks the other way while they stream music for virtually nothing. There is an entire sub-industry making billions off of the catalogues of many legacy artists and for the most part, the artists earn very little. It is their work and their music that generates all of this revenue for other parties and they are not receiving an equitable share.
As far as Frampton is concerned, if someone wants to acquire "Frampton Comes Alive," yes, they can search out a pirated digital copy, or find a used copy at some local used record shop somewhere, but many consumers are going to acquire Frampton's work from the most common and easily available format -- and right now, that is streaming and other digital services that pay the artist next to nothing. The bottom line is that 55 million streams, which is significant, should amount to something notable and equitable, not a small four figure sum.
Amazing that musicians believe they have some kind of divine right to become millionaires. The trouble is that acts like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin led everyone to believe that become VERY rich off music was 'the norm' and if you didn't, something was very wrong.
Also Peter Frampton and other dinosaurs in the music business do not understand that 99% of these streaming listens are people that would otherwise NOT be aware of their existence. Streaming in 2018 is a bonus for old acts.
New groups(those established in the 2010s) understand this and base their 'living' off selling physical LPs, merchandise and touring. They know the days of becoming millionaires and having a mansion in Cornwall are over.
I wonder how much he makes from radio play of that song, Q107 plays it all the time.
True, in this era of streaming, revenue from live performances is how many musicians are earning the majority of their income (along with band and tour merchandise).
However, the price of those tickets has many peripheral topics, many worthy of healthy, logical debate:
Legalised scalping (such as Ticketmaster+ and StubHub, etc),
Exorbitant “Ticket Agency Service Fees”,
Ticketmaster’s Monopolistic hold on the industry
Massive extravaganza event touring mini-cities costing millions just to travel,
Paying a very reasonable price to see a talented solo musician (or band) onstage without any unnecessary frills
Streaming is not stealing. Who is stealing anything? Also, as alluded above, the goal of copyright is to grant an artist limited rights for a fixed amount of time in order for them to profit exclusively from their creative efforts. Frankly, I find it hard to say Frampton hasn't had sufficient time to reap the benefits of his work. My god, he amassed a fortune from it. I don't really feel too sorry for him. Under the original law, he would be nearly termed out and SOL.
Separate names with a comma.