NOT The biggest secret in the music industry

[whynot]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389449011' post='2334267']
that's an argument based on jealousy
[/quote]
No it's not.

[UglyDog]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389449011' post='2334267']
Testicles or not, that's an argument based on jealousy.
[/quote]
Whereas "why should they get all the money?" isnt..?
Okay then.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389463952' post='2334462']
Whereas "why should they get all the money?" isnt..?
Okay then.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that that's not a quote from any of my posts. I don't have any problem with folks getting their honest due for their hard work. This includes bus drivers, doctors, sculptors and musicians. I may have missed out on one or two professions there, but they're due due recompense, too. That's not the issue. I am uncomfortable with folks getting money (understood: from other folks...) when their work is over, finished, achieved. I know, understand and realise that this is the way of the world, that I'm not going to change much (if anything...) in holding this position, and I'm not overly bothered about losing 'street-cred' or popularity here. My point is that getting money for nothing (more...) comes from someone else, who is working (albeit not necessarily producing a tangible product; nurses work, bank clerks work, poets work...). Anyone working should get their due. Anyone who has worked should get their due for what they have done. Once that's been paid up, that's it. Not that difficult to understand, I'd have thought. Not common practice, I'm aware. Pity, though. Jealous..? That doesn't come into it. Feel free to believe that, or not, of course, but that changes nothing from the reasoning; merely my eventual motivations.

[redstriper]

[attachment=152089:john-lennon-music-quotes-music-is-everybodys-possession-its-only-publishers-who.jpg]

[Marvin]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1389466742' post='2334501']
[attachment=152089:john-lennon-music-quotes-music-is-everybodys-possession-its-only-publishers-who.jpg]
[/quote]

I suppose he gave all his royalty cheques back along with his white Roller and his large country pile after he said that...and resigned from Apple records of course.

[TimR]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389464732' post='2334472']


...
Once that's been paid up, that's it.
...
[/quote]

That's the tough but to understand and regulate.

It would also mean that some tunes would cost more/take longer to pay for depending on how many musicians made the music and how long they took to create the music.

How long does it take from coming up with an idea to realisation?

[SteveK]

So, "[i]when the work is over[/i]" and the artist has received "[i]fair recompense[/i]" for said work, what happens then? Is the product then available to all for free? Is it available at the cost of reproduction?
If it's not available for free, does the money go to the exchequer? To charity?

[MiltyG565]

I have the solution!

From now on, all musicians get paid in sandwiches and beverages. Every time you're played on the radio, that's a ham and cheese sandwich. Every time your music is used in a movie, that's a foot-long chicken, ham, and stuffing sub. And basically, it works a bit like that.

[redstriper]

How many times should a composer be paid for his work?

Every time someone buys a recording, the composer is paid which seems fair to me.
But I don't see why he should be paid again and again every time someone plays that song to an audience for the next 70 years.
It is an invention by publishers, primarily to make money for publishers.

[skankdelvar]

I can see the validity of Dad's proposition if one views the issue of one's 'time' in complete isolation from all other factors. The problem is that the idea of 'just reward' immediately introduces a transactional component. One individual is swapping their time-derived money for another's else's time-derived product or service. Without transactions, everyone exists in their own bubble where nothing ever happens.

So we have to have transactions. Let us assume such transactions might be based on swapping equal amounts of time, which would be fine if the service or product warranted no additional expenditure beyond the time expended to deliver the product or service.

But let us imagine a transaction where a luthier builds a bass. In addition to supplying their time, the luthier must additionally supply components which carry a cost. Unless he is to make an (unfair) loss, the lutheir must aggregate his own time cost and that of his supplier. Which - again - would be fine if all physical resources were infinite. But they are not.

The moment that the luthier's customer chooses a mahogany body over basswood there comes into play a variation in price which is dependent not upon the time / cost of felling a tree but - in part and therefore of a contributory nature - upon arboricultural factors beyond man's control e.g. weather. Hence, the transaction becomes disjointed and time ceases to be the only determinant.

We could explore all the other pertaining variables at length, but let's not.

I believe the proposition 'everyone's time is of equal value' is valid only when viewed in the abstract or in conditions of theoretical hypothesis that assume away so many factors away as to lack the potential for any practical application. It's a nice idea and the motivating spirit entirely praiseworthy in a context of making everything lovely for everybody.

It's rather like the old saying 'If wishes were horses, beggars would ride'. Well, yes, but they aren't and they don't.

Edited January 11, 2014 by skankdelvar

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389467251' post='2334511']
I suppose he gave all his royalty cheques back along with his white Roller and his large country pile after he said that...and resigned from Apple records of course.
[/quote]

No, he was just as hypocritical as the rest of us.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='whynot' timestamp='1389447479' post='2334240']
What a load of bollocks.
Why shouldn't a writer, either through natural talent or hard graft to create something that people want, receive royalties when used, as other parties are feeding of that work all along the way.
Just my opinion of course.
[/quote]

Ignoring the actual opinion, what about the inconsistency? Why single out song writers and similar for this sort of deal but not apply it to everyone? What makes writers so special?

Why don't we pay royalties on the wheel? or knives and forks? Or shoes? Or maybe we did but they're now out of copyright?

[TimR]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389470218' post='2334572']


Ignoring the actual opinion, what about the inconsistency? Why single out song writers and similar for this sort of deal but not apply it to everyone? What makes writers so special?

Why don't we pay royalties on the wheel? or knives and forks? Or shoes? Or maybe we did but they're now out of copyright?
[/quote]

Or middle C?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389467730' post='2334523']
That's the tough but to understand and regulate.

It would also mean that some tunes would cost more/take longer to pay for depending on how many musicians made the music and how long they took to create the music.

How long does it take from coming up with an idea to realisation?
[/quote]

This is how industries work (I was a cost accountant for a while, and worked with ERP software for costing purposes...). An Airbus takes more man/hours than a Bentley, so costs more. Man/hours are man/hours.

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1389467731' post='2334524']
So, "[i]when the work is over[/i]" and the artist has received "[i]fair recompense[/i]" for said work, what happens then? Is the product then available to all for free? Is it available at the cost of reproduction?
If it's not available for free, does the money go to the exchequer? To charity?
[/quote]

Yes, it's now free. It has been paid for. Who does one pay when sitting on a chair that's been bought..? The designer..? No, it's been paid for.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389467932' post='2334528']
I have the solution!

From now on, all musicians get paid in sandwiches and beverages. Every time you're played on the radio, that's a ham and cheese sandwich. Every time your music is used in a movie, that's a foot-long chicken, ham, and stuffing sub. And basically, it works a bit like that.
[/quote]

Hmm... A tough one, this. I'll have to think it through. Tempting...

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1389468431' post='2334538']
How many times should a composer be paid for his work?

Every time someone buys a recording, the composer is paid which seems fair to me.
But I don't see why he should be paid again and again every time someone plays that song to an audience for the next 70 years.
It is an invention by publishers, primarily to make money for publishers.
[/quote]

All except the first line, I agree. The composer should be paid for the time it took to compose, one off. End of.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389469857' post='2334566']
I can see the validity of Dad's proposition if one views the issue of one's 'time' in complete isolation from all other factors. The problem is that the idea of 'just reward' immediately introduces a transactional component. One individual is swapping their time-derived money for another's else's time-derived product or service. Without transactions, everyone exists in their own bubble where nothing ever happens.

So we have to have transactions. Let us assume such transactions might be based on swapping equal amounts of time, which would be fine if the service or product warranted no additional expenditure beyond the time expended to deliver the product or service.

But let us imagine a transaction where a luthier builds a bass. In addition to supplying their time, the luthier must additionally supply components which carry a cost. Unless he is to make an (unfair) loss, the lutheir must aggregate his own time cost and that of his supplier. Which - again - would be fine if all physical resources were infinite. But they are not.

The moment that the luthier's customer chooses a mahogany body over basswood there comes into play a variation in price which is dependent not upon the time / cost of felling a tree but - in part and therefore of a contributory nature - upon arboricultural factors beyond man's control e.g. weather. Hence, the transaction becomes disjointed and time ceases to be the only determinant.

We could explore all the other pertaining variables at length, but let's not.

I believe the proposition 'everyone's time is of equal value' is valid only when viewed in the abstract or in conditions of theoretical hypothesis that assume away so many factors away as to lack the potential for any practical application. It's a nice idea and the motivating spirit entirely praiseworthy in a context of making everything lovely for everybody.

It's rather like the old saying 'If wishes were horses, beggars would ride'. Well, yes, but they aren't and they don't.
[/quote]
Again, almost (Hey..! that's nearly on a par with Milty..! Progress, sir..!).
I've deliberately avoided clouding the issue with raw materials, but the same principles apply. Any materials and/or ancillary costs are factored in, in the sale way as the flour is included in the price of bread. Wood would cost more if it used more man/hours to obtain it. Tuners cost whatever time it takes to make them, plus the metal cost (OK, OK and the tooling costs et al...). Everything (I can't think of any exceptions...) can be brought to their cost in man/hours. Yes, even raising horses and growing carrots. They're not free; someone has to tend to them. That's their cost.
So, I still maintain that, utopianism it may be, but it's the fair and right way to handle transactions. You see..? Not only musicians. Others work, too. I would have a fair deal for all, that's the only difference.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Dad3353

[skankdelvar]

In respect of musical copyright, anything which increases a musician's earnings is a good thing. The argument that it is unfair to the purchaser would pertain only if the purchase was enforced. Which it is not.

It is all very well to hold a view that - if enacted - would disadvantage working professional songwriters. But I would expect the idea to gain traction only among those who - being non-participants - would have nothing to lose. Perhaps that's why there is a tiny smattering of support here on a bass forum where hierarchy determines that some of us merely stand around waiting to be given something to play.

[Dad3353]

OK. I understand. It seems that you agree that the financial arrangements that brought this topic about are...

1 - None of our business (I would agree in the abstract...)
2 - Perfectly honourable and normal
3 - To be taken as a model for any in a similar position.

OK. I understand.

[TimR]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389470722' post='2334580']

...
Yes, it's now free. It has been paid for. Who does one pay when sitting on a chair that's been bought..? The designer..? No, it's been paid for.

...
[/quote]

That copy of the chair has been.

What happens when it breaks and you need a new one?

Or

Your brother wants one to sit on?

Edited January 11, 2014 by TimR

[Marvin]

It'd be interesting to guage how many contributors, who make money from playing in covers bands, don't think that the person whose work they are using to get paid should also not receive something. After all, if they had not written the song covers bands would have nothing to play and not get paid themselves.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Marvin

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389472417' post='2334605']...What happens when it breaks and you need a new one?...[/quote]

I buy another. The designer still gets nothing fom that sale.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389472417' post='2334605']...Your brother wants one to sit on?[/quote]

I boot him off it, of course. It's my bl**dy chair.

[discreet]

My brother can get his own bloody chair.

[discreet]

Well we agree on something, Dad.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389473865' post='2334626']
It'd be interesting to guage how many contributors, who make money from playing in covers bands, don't think that the person whose work they are using to get paid should also not receive something. After all, if they had not written the song covers bands would have nothing to play and not get paid themselves.
[/quote]

...and I thought [i]I[/i] was skating on thin ice..? My hero..!

[TimR]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389473865' post='2334626']
It'd be interesting to guage how many contributors, who make money from playing in covers bands, don't think that the person whose work they are using to get paid should also not receive something. After all, if they had not written the song covers bands would have nothing to play and not get paid themselves.
[/quote]

They do. It's called a PRS licence.

[discreet]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389474186' post='2334636']
They do. It's called a PRS licence.
[/quote]

Yes. Strictly speaking, some venues require a set list which needs to be sent to the PRS. There are various different public performance tariffs and pricing issues to be taken into consideration.

[url="http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/livevenuesevents/concertvenues/Pages/concertvenues.aspx"]http://www.prsformus...certvenues.aspx[/url]

Edited January 11, 2014 by discreet

[Marvin]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389474186' post='2334636']


They do. It's called a PRS licence.
[/quote]

I know . There seem to be several contributors who think it unjust that a writer get paid when someone plays their work. Surely, this would, by implication, include the whole PRS licensing thing that covers covers bands...considering that the covers band is using a writers work to probably get paid themselves.